Open letter to Froome

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

Is it open season on open letters now? Does everyone have to write one?

Here's my Open Letter to the People of the Clinic:

Please don't make these open letters a thing. It's not big (well, the letters are, in length) and it's not clever.

A nineteen-hundred word "open letter" to a man who blocks people on Twitter just for commenting on his hair does seem rather self indulgent...

The only way not to make them a thing is by not responding.

Right, yeah, cause omertà and its code of silence has been such a swell success...

:lol: Yeh because its exactly the same.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Is it open season on open letters now? Does everyone have to write one?

Here's my Open Letter to the People of the Clinic:

Please don't make these open letters a thing. It's not big (well, the letters are, in length) and it's not clever.

A nineteen-hundred word "open letter" to a man who blocks people on Twitter just for commenting on his hair does seem rather self indulgent...

The only way not to make them a thing is by not responding.

Right, yeah, cause omertà and its code of silence has been such a swell success...

:lol: Yeh because its exactly the same.

Silence is silence, chum.

 

[poupou]

Even if it's a bit long, detailled points and argumentations were needed for all readers. Thanks MI.

 

[Parker]

I used to think that there's nothing in the media more pompous and self serving that an 'open letter'. Particularly one that the intended recipient will never read.

But I now realise that same thing written by someone remaining anonymous, particularly one demanding the release of information.

The self awareness of some people on here is hysterical. Good god, Merckx Index, you really thing you're something special don't you?

Dear Chris Froome,

I have several followers on twitter, and several likes. I also have had positive responses to my posts on a fringe forum. I AM A BIG DEAL.

So listen up. Here is how you can try to persuade me and my followers you are clean. (PS we're convinced you're not but you must try anyway)

Yours,

Some Bozo

 

[JosephK]

This is becoming a very entertaining thread. Thanks to all participants. :lol:

 

[veganrob]

Re:

I used to think that there's nothing in the media more pompous and self serving that an 'open letter'. Particularly one that the intended recipient will never read.

But I now realise that same thing written by someone remaining anonymous, particularly one demanding the release of information.

The self awareness of some people on here is hysterical. Good god, Merckx Index, you really thing you're something special don't you?

Dear Chris Froome,

I have several followers on twitter, and several likes. I also have had positive responses to my posts on a fringe forum. I AM A BIG DEAL.

So listen up. Here is how you can try to persuade me and my followers you are clean. (PS we're convinced you're not but you must try anyway)

Yours,

Some Bozo

D

Did MI demand anything? Perhaps you should read his post again. Jeez.

 

[Merckx index]

To: argel, RJ, parker

Responding to facts with opinions is, to borrow a phrase from Carlos Castaneda, like trying to defend yourself from a mountain lion with your farts. The appropriate response to facts is not to guess at the author’s state of mind or motives for listing them; it’s to rebut them if one can. If you can’t, then anything else you have to say is basically irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This seems to be difficult for people who aren’t scientists to understand, but it is possible to be interested in facts, regardless of where they lead one. I spent many hours trying to find an explanation for Froome’s positive that would get him off, not because I wanted him to get off or not, but because I was generally curious as to the possible explanations. And my squawking about it has had an effect. I’ve recently received some information from Daren Austin, the researcher at Glaxo who ran the simulations of Froome’s data. I’m not allowed to say anything about this, but he did say he will be publishing some of this soon. If I’m convinced—and I have already learned one key point I wasn’t aware of before—I won’t be shy about coming on here and pointing this out. I really want to understand how WADA’s scientists were convinced, if in fact they were.

Second point. An open letter is a literary gimmick. Repeat, a gimmick. It is not intended primarily for the stated recipient; if it were, it would not be open, it would be sent privately. It’s intended primarily for an audience that has an interest in the stated recipient and his issues. If the person to whom it’s addressed reads it and/or responds, fine, but that’s not the main objective. Almost by definition, open letters are generally addressed to individuals who are extremely unlikely to respond. In my naivete, I thought anyone informed and intelligent enough to post on the internet would understand this. Obviously, I was very wrong.

Third point. I’m not an anonymous poster. Anyone who has read my dopeology article knows my name, though that name won’t do them any particular good. I have no twitter feed as—again, this will be hard for many posters to grasp—I have no interest in self promotion. I actually have very little interest in self, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

To: argel, RJ, parker

Responding to facts with opinions is, to borrow a phrase from Carlos Castaneda, like trying to defend yourself from a mountain lion with your farts. The appropriate response to facts is not to guess at the author’s state of mind or motives for listing them; it’s to rebut them if one can. If you can’t, then anything else you have to say is basically irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This seems to be difficult for people who aren’t scientists to understand, but it is possible to be interested in facts, regardless of where they lead one. I spent many hours trying to find an explanation for Froome’s positive that would get him off, not because I wanted him to get off or not, but because I was generally curious as to the possible explanations. And my squawking about it has had an effect. I’ve recently received some information from Daren Austin, the researcher at Glaxo who ran the simulations of Froome’s data. I’m not allowed to say anything about this, but he did say he will be publishing some of this soon. If I’m convinced—and I have already learned one key point I wasn’t aware of before—I won’t be shy about coming on here and pointing this out. I really want to understand how WADA’s scientists were convinced, if in fact they were.

Second point. An open letter is a literary gimmick. Repeat, a gimmick. It is not intended primarily for the stated recipient; if it were, it would not be open, it would be sent privately. It’s intended primarily for an audience that has an interest in the stated recipient and his issues. If the person to whom it’s addressed reads it and/or responds, fine, but that’s not the main objective. Almost by definition, open letters are generally addressed to individuals who are extremely unlikely to respond. In my naivete, I thought anyone informed and intelligent enough to post on the internet would understand this. Obviously, I was very wrong.

Third point. I’m not an anonymous poster. Anyone who has read my dopeology article knows my name, though that name won’t do them any particular good. I have no twitter feed as—again, this will be hard for many posters to grasp—I have no interest in self promotion. I actually have very little interest in self, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.

You thought people had to be intelligent and informed to post on the internet?? :lol:

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

is this a joke?... I'm starting to think people are only posting in here to see who can make the craziest post

You label posts as crazy or bullsh*t but at no point have I seen you actually make an intelligent argument against those posts. It's always just a one line ad hominem attack directed towards a Sky-critical poster.

it really is amazing how some people believe they have right to know every single bit of detail about Froome...

It's not a "right". MI is saying that Froome, a member of the self-proclaimed paragons of transparency, can save himself a lot of the abuse he suffers roadside by simply living up to the so-called team mantra of being clean and transparent.

While we're on the subject of rights,.. Froome himself has no right to ask "what more can I do?" until he actually answers the questions in this letter with cold, hard facts. He has never come close to doing so.

Precisely my posts. A lot of the defense of Sky these days seems to be nothing more than nonestop personal attacks at anyone who questions them.

is this a joke?... I'm starting to think people are only posting in here to see who can make the craziest post

it really is amazing how some people believe they have right to know every single bit of detail about Froome...

so in general what you've done is write a letter on a faceless forum to a cyclist you don't know asking him question that you will never get the answer to...I suppose it makes you look good to the few

3 posts in 5 minutes attacking the OP. You seem really upset at the idea of people expressing an opinion

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

To: argel, RJ, parker

Responding to facts with opinions is, to borrow a phrase from Carlos Castaneda, like trying to defend yourself from a mountain lion with your farts. The appropriate response to facts is not to guess at the author’s state of mind or motives for listing them; it’s to rebut them if one can. If you can’t, then anything else you have to say is basically irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This seems to be difficult for people who aren’t scientists to understand, but it is possible to be interested in facts, regardless of where they lead one. I spent many hours trying to find an explanation for Froome’s positive that would get him off, not because I wanted him to get off or not, but because I was generally curious as to the possible explanations. And my squawking about it has had an effect. I’ve recently received some information from Daren Austin, the researcher at Glaxo who ran the simulations of Froome’s data. I’m not allowed to say anything about this, but he did say he will be publishing some of this soon. If I’m convinced—and I have already learned one key point I wasn’t aware of before—I won’t be shy about coming on here and pointing this out. I really want to understand how WADA’s scientists were convinced, if in fact they were.

Second point. An open letter is a literary gimmick. Repeat, a gimmick. It is not intended primarily for the stated recipient; if it were, it would not be open, it would be sent privately. It’s intended primarily for an audience that has an interest in the stated recipient and his issues. If the person to whom it’s addressed reads it and/or responds, fine, but that’s not the main objective. Almost by definition, open letters are generally addressed to individuals who are extremely unlikely to respond. In my naivete, I thought anyone informed and intelligent enough to post on the internet would understand this. Obviously, I was very wrong.

Third point. I’m not an anonymous poster. Anyone who has read my dopeology article knows my name, though that name won’t do them any particular good. I have no twitter feed as—again, this will be hard for many posters to grasp—I have no interest in self promotion. I actually have very little interest in self, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.

You thought people had to be intelligent and informed to post on the internet?? :lol:

What is the point of this comment? Even if you dont want to make intelligent or informed posts on the internet. Doesn't mean no one is allowed to

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

To: argel, RJ, parker

Responding to facts with opinions is, to borrow a phrase from Carlos Castaneda, like trying to defend yourself from a mountain lion with your farts. The appropriate response to facts is not to guess at the author’s state of mind or motives for listing them; it’s to rebut them if one can. If you can’t, then anything else you have to say is basically irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This seems to be difficult for people who aren’t scientists to understand, but it is possible to be interested in facts, regardless of where they lead one. I spent many hours trying to find an explanation for Froome’s positive that would get him off, not because I wanted him to get off or not, but because I was generally curious as to the possible explanations. And my squawking about it has had an effect. I’ve recently received some information from Daren Austin, the researcher at Glaxo who ran the simulations of Froome’s data. I’m not allowed to say anything about this, but he did say he will be publishing some of this soon. If I’m convinced—and I have already learned one key point I wasn’t aware of before—I won’t be shy about coming on here and pointing this out. I really want to understand how WADA’s scientists were convinced, if in fact they were.

Second point. An open letter is a literary gimmick. Repeat, a gimmick. It is not intended primarily for the stated recipient; if it were, it would not be open, it would be sent privately. It’s intended primarily for an audience that has an interest in the stated recipient and his issues. If the person to whom it’s addressed reads it and/or responds, fine, but that’s not the main objective. Almost by definition, open letters are generally addressed to individuals who are extremely unlikely to respond. In my naivete, I thought anyone informed and intelligent enough to post on the internet would understand this. Obviously, I was very wrong.

Third point. I’m not an anonymous poster. Anyone who has read my dopeology article knows my name, though that name won’t do them any particular good. I have no twitter feed as—again, this will be hard for many posters to grasp—I have no interest in self promotion. I actually have very little interest in self, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.

You thought people had to be intelligent and informed to post on the internet?? :lol:

What is the point of this comment? Even if you dont want to make intelligent or informed posts on the internet. Doesn't mean no one is allowed to

Where did I say no one is allowed to make intelligent or informed posts?

Answer. I didnt

The point of the comment was to point out that you don't have to be intelligent or informed to post on the internet

Thanks for illustrating my point

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I used to think that there's nothing in the media more pompous and self serving that an 'open letter'. Particularly one that the intended recipient will never read.

But I now realise that same thing written by someone remaining anonymous, particularly one demanding the release of information.

The self awareness of some people on here is hysterical. Good god, Merckx Index, you really thing you're something special don't you?

Dear Chris Froome,

I have several followers on twitter, and several likes. I also have had positive responses to my posts on a fringe forum. I AM A BIG DEAL.

So listen up. Here is how you can try to persuade me and my followers you are clean. (PS we're convinced you're not but you must try anyway)

Yours,

Some Bozo

Another post that makes no arguments and 100% personal attacks.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

To: argel, RJ, parker

Responding to facts with opinions is, to borrow a phrase from Carlos Castaneda, like trying to defend yourself from a mountain lion with your farts. The appropriate response to facts is not to guess at the author’s state of mind or motives for listing them; it’s to rebut them if one can. If you can’t, then anything else you have to say is basically irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This seems to be difficult for people who aren’t scientists to understand, but it is possible to be interested in facts, regardless of where they lead one. I spent many hours trying to find an explanation for Froome’s positive that would get him off, not because I wanted him to get off or not, but because I was generally curious as to the possible explanations. And my squawking about it has had an effect. I’ve recently received some information from Daren Austin, the researcher at Glaxo who ran the simulations of Froome’s data. I’m not allowed to say anything about this, but he did say he will be publishing some of this soon. If I’m convinced—and I have already learned one key point I wasn’t aware of before—I won’t be shy about coming on here and pointing this out. I really want to understand how WADA’s scientists were convinced, if in fact they were.

Second point. An open letter is a literary gimmick. Repeat, a gimmick. It is not intended primarily for the stated recipient; if it were, it would not be open, it would be sent privately. It’s intended primarily for an audience that has an interest in the stated recipient and his issues. If the person to whom it’s addressed reads it and/or responds, fine, but that’s not the main objective. Almost by definition, open letters are generally addressed to individuals who are extremely unlikely to respond. In my naivete, I thought anyone informed and intelligent enough to post on the internet would understand this. Obviously, I was very wrong.

Third point. I’m not an anonymous poster. Anyone who has read my dopeology article knows my name, though that name won’t do them any particular good. I have no twitter feed as—again, this will be hard for many posters to grasp—I have no interest in self promotion. I actually have very little interest in self, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.

You thought people had to be intelligent and informed to post on the internet?? :lol:

What is the point of this comment? Even if you dont want to make intelligent or informed posts on the internet. Doesn't mean no one is allowed to

Where did I say no one is allowed to make intelligent or informed posts?

Answer. I didnt

The point of the comment was to point out that you don't have to be intelligent or informed to post on the internet

Thanks for illustrating my point

You chided the op for thinking people would be intelligent and informed on the internet. Its part of a wider theme where you guys at every turn pass commentary on how stupid/dumb/unintelligent etc the internet/clinic/twitter is. It seems to me to be just another one of the attempts to invalidate questions aimed at Sky.

What's funny is that everyone who constantly mocks the internet/ clinic for being so insignificant, just can't help themselves to keep posting. If you are so much more informed and intelligent than the internet why waste your time on here?

 

[dacooley]

from the outside, it looks so comical. the man has exposed himself to unthinkable physical exertion and lived under strictest regimen in terms of training, nutrition, diet for years. naturally froome is doping, but looking back at the past of the sport, in fact, he has no evidence to consider using peds anything wrongful. froome is an extremely successfull person, after all. and requiring any transparecy and opening secrets from him seems naïve and even childish. folks, if you were him, none of you would agree to unveil any info, since it's like to bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

You chided the op for thinking people would be intelligent and informed on the internet. Its part of a wider theme where you guys at every turn pass commentary on how stupid/dumb/unintelligent etc the internet/clinic/twitter is. It seems to me to be just another one of the attempts to invalidate questions aimed at Sky.

Not really, MI is clearly one of the most informed posters on here, far be it from me to 'chide' him with anything other than humorous intent. To this comment specifically, i did find it quite amusing that anyone would think intelligence is needed to post on an internet forum. Any kid with a smartphone can comment on an internet forum these days, no? that is far removed from saying everyone who posts on the internet is stupid.

What's funny is that everyone who constantly mocks the internet/ clinic for being so insignificant, just can't help themselves to keep posting. If you are so much more informed and intelligent than the internet why waste your time on here?

Here again you are putting words into my mouth that i simply did not and have not said. I've noticed that's a bit of a MO for you. If you want to make this point, go find one post of mine where i've claimed to be more intelligent or criticised this forum or anyone who chooses to 'waste' their time on here. Good luck. I'm an unapologetic fan of this forum and the debate that goes on in here, no attempts from me to deny that.

 

[samhocking]

The clinic seems to be disappearing up its own self-claimed importance with posts like this. What has the clinic ever changed? It's simply internet noise and fun in terms of anti-doping. Write and put pressure on those that can actually make a difference perhaps? As for Froome, when has any athlete had to prove their innocence with the authorities in the past anyway? Total bias MI. It should be an open letter to all athletes at least surely?

 

[The Hitch]

The clinic seems to be disappearing up its own self-claimed importance with posts like this. What has the clinic ever changed? It's simply internet noise and fun in terms of anti-doping.

Exhibit F of posts with no arguments just insults aimed at Op (or in this case even other people who didn't write the OP because why not).

 

[samhocking]

I'm not insulting, i'm actually asking why MI thinks just one rider out of thousands should have to prove their innocence from the authorities to the clinic/public and why isn;t this an open letter for all innocent athletes to justify their innocence because we don't have their case details either! In fact we don't even know who they are, only that they exist! While i'm at it, why not ask for the unknown case details of guilty athletes too if we are worried the authorities are wrong/covering cases up.

 

[rick james]

this thread is only here to feed self importance

 

[poupou]

Re:

this thread is only here to feed self importance

So you post here... like me

 

[Valanga]

Re: Re:

this thread is only here to feed self importance

So you post here... like me

Yup, and keeps repeating himself. Just in case we missed his previous very important posts.

 

[Mamil]

Well I for one appreciated the 'letter'. A good distillation of the many questions surrounding Froome, and his and Sky's record of offering data and evidence and then either not doing it or completely fudging it. The little bit on Froome's apparent lack of a TUE for salbutamol whilst at Barloworld I hadn't considered before.

Sure, Froome is far from the only rider out there with questions that could be asked over their histories, connections, performances etc., but Froome certainly raises, and I'd say invites, more than most, both from his own history and his position as the pre-eminent rider of a thoroughly tainted sport.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

this thread is only here to feed self importance

So you post here... like me

Yup, and keeps repeating himself. Just in case we missed his previous very important posts.

aye I'm, the one writing open letters to cyclist...sad state of affairs

 

[samhocking]

Well I for one appreciated the 'letter'. A good distillation of the many questions surrounding Froome, and his and Sky's record of offering data and evidence and then either not doing it or completely fudging it. The little bit on Froome's apparent lack of a TUE for salbutamol whilst at Barloworld I hadn't considered before.

Sure, Froome is far from the only rider out there with questions that could be asked over their histories, connections, performances etc., but Froome certainly raises, and I'd say invites, more than most, both from his own history and his position as the pre-eminent rider of a thoroughly tainted sport.

TUEs to cyclists are not only issued by UCI you know. Generally, only once a rider switches from National to International level competition they stop applying to their NADO for each TUE. Also, it wasn't that unusual to get the first TUE for asthma reviewed after a year and then you would get 5 or 10 year TUE to minimise pointless paperwork renewing asthma treatments, so Froome might well have had a 5 year TUE from UCI Africa Tour days that crossed over once he turned to International competition. UCI & WADA recognises NADO TUEs also obviously.

MI is a little out too. Until January 2011 athletes could also use an ATUE for beta-2-Agonists and glucocorticosteroids. So basically they did't need to go through the full TUE process anyway, simply fill in a self-renewal form (ATUE) basically which would last upto 2 years and you wouldn't need supporting evidence like lung function tests etc the full TUEs do, just your team doctor approval.

As for Fancy Bears, they are a criminal organisation who didn't release all the TUEs anyway. Crikey they omitted all the supporting evidence from each of Wiggins TUEs, so I wouldn't use Fancy Bears as wanting to find the truth, that was never their objective at all.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

aye I'm, the one writing open letters to cyclist...sad state of affairs

You're the one who's either wasting your own time reading and replying to posts by, in your own words, "crazy, self-important bullsh*tters", wasting everyone else's time by filling the forum with snide remarks of no substance or both.

In any case, you have to ask yourself... What's the point? What do you get out of spending your days on this board? You don't seem to understand the discussion, you don't seem to even want to understand the discussion and you definitely don't contribute to the discussion. Sad state of affairs indeed.