You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It wasn’t just a slight infringement,
I think people are calling it a slight infringement in performance enhancing terms. Nobody on here or anywhere else has explained how a one-off ingestion of this particular drug during the course of a race could help him.
As much as I dislike Sky, I don't think its fair to link Lance's drug taking to Froome's adverse analytical finding. At least not yet anyway.
Yes Lance used to say he had never tested positive, ergo, I don't dope. However that's not a fair comparison to Froome's AAF. We know Armstrong was a serial liar, but didn't he fail a drug test in 2001 and also four failed tests in 1999? From memory he submitted a backdated TUE and was helped with the cover up. In 2005 the UCI also retested samples from 1999 and found EPO, however having no B samples (a completely different story) meant no further action was taken. I'm sure paying money to the UCI didn't do him any harm.
So just because another rider who was also very successful was a serial cheat doesn't mean everyone currently is (they may be - but evidence is needed). Froome may be taking all sorts but at this moment in time there is only evidence to suggest an adverse reading of a drug he has permission to use.
My personal thoughts are that to do what they do for 3 weeks then they must be glowing permanently. But that's just a personal opinion. I wouldn't be hurt or happy if Froome is found to have "cheated".
"slight infringement" was meant in terms of the Armstrong Years...
As to the harping on about "Froome's supporters"...actually read my posts above?
And as to Froome's "superhuman" ride. it was good, but it wasn't superhuman, how come we talk about Froome in terms of one stage being superhuman, yet 2 1/2 weeks of Yates riding above and beyond his normal form was just good riding?
Please confirm exactly how salbumotol allowed Froome to ride the descent faster than his competitors who were all waiting for each other to chase?
As stated if you read above, i am no fan of Froome, but i come at the subject with at least some knowledge, i really wanted Yates to do it, his giving it everything, then blowing up spectacularly was exciting to watch and showed what he gave to stay ahead those 2 1/2 weeks, he absolutely emptied himself, whilst Froome was falling off his bike and struggling to keep up, Yates was in the red a lot, whilst Froome had yet a lot more left in the tank i think?
The issue that a lot of people forgot is that over the weeks of a Grand Tour riders fatigue, there will be an accumulative affect, so it is often not a case of one rider getting faster towards the end, it is more a case of the aren't deteriorating as fast, they are going less slow as the others. Froome has done this numerous times now and he has the stamina of a few more years over Yates.
Its easy. Your innocent until proven guilty. That's the law in most of the world. Anything else is just speculation. So I see no issues with him continuing to race.
Many have argued that Froome should not of turned up at the Giro, but they organisers paid him a no doubt very healthy appearance fee to be there, which he accepted...
Did we do STW handbag-waving-high-horses about the Giro start being in Israel or did i miss that to?
Yeah, some of us were pissed off about the Giro starting in Israel.
No-one listened though, the ASO said it would evoke harmony in an region split by religion.
So that’s ok then. Doesn’t seem to have made any difference whatsoever.
Did we do STW handbag-waving-high-horses about the Giro start being in Israel or did i miss that to?
I think there was just a "Really?" and a disappointing look
Harmony to a region? i must have missed the bit where the rode through Palestine in a show of unification!
Any way back to the arguments... funny how this thread is on 5 pages and the thread on actually discussing the race is on 2!
e thread on actually discussing the race is on 2!
Possibly because there’s nothing to discuss about the racing for a whole month?
Whereas so much new stuff is happening in the Froome AAF case.
Errr...
I think it has finally distilled down to the he is guilty regardless (see also witch trials) and the evidence is going to be very interesting and have some implications for testing going forward.
You know when people resort to fanboi claims their arguments are a bit dead
You know when people resort to fanboi claims their arguments are a bit dead
Typical fanboi! I will come back and haunt your arse once I am dead, so there, ad nauseum... 😉
As much as I dislike Sky, I don’t think its fair to link Lance’s drug taking to Froome’s adverse analytical finding
the point, that you seem to have missed, is that on lances comeback he had to comply with the BP and he still managed a top three finish (although he claims he didn’t dope, yeah, right) but he didn’t trigger any sanctions. So, if the BP could be gamed then, it can be gamed now.
In the giro he picked his stage and went for it, what, 80km out and managed to take time on the climbs, the flats as well as the descent on his own... and that isn’t superhuman? At least Yates had the decency to disintegrate 🤣 the immediate reaction from (ex) riders (don’t forget Philippa York and Sean Kellys reactions) a bit like LAs Sestriere ‘99 ride. A genius troll, in plain sight. Chapeau!
you seriously think 4 consecutive GTs is “normal” and doesn’t raise an eyebrow? Wow! I’ve a couple of bridges to sell, maybe your interested?
i come at the subject with at least some knowledge
I’ve watched the the sport of pro cycling since the early eighties, I’ve learned a thing or two as well. When it’s too good to be true, it isn’t. HTH.
In the giro he picked his stage and went for it, what, 80km out and managed to take time on the climbs, the flats as well as the descent on his own… and that isn’t superhuman?
Hmm, well, y'know just go back to the video above. you have decided the facts and the evidence is not for you. Nothing will change your mind,, you could live with the guy 24/7 and still think he was getting the drugs through a magic vapour etc. of you coudn't see anything else
you have decided the facts and the evidence is not for you
well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
can you even contemplate that he might, you know, actually be a doper? I mean, he went through such a miraculous transformation in just three weeks! 🤣
can you even contemplate that he might, you know, actuallybe a doper? I mean, he went through such a miraculous transformation in just three weeks!
I can contemplate the possibility, can you contemplate that he might not be?
“the point, that you seem to have missed, is that on lances comeback he had to comply with the BP and he still managed a top three finish (although he claims he didn’t dope, yeah, right) but he didn’t trigger any sanctions. So, if the BP could be gamed then, it can be gamed now.”
+1.
The dopers have always been ahead of the testers.
If you don’t believe me watch Icarus & hear it from the horses mouth....
"in the giro he picked his stage and went for it, what, 80km out and managed to take time on the climbs, the flats as well as the descent on his own… and that isn’t superhuman?"
Where have you been? The point is it wasn't a super human effort. It was meticulously planned beforehand, sky team members placed out at strategic points to keep him fed - no other team had thought to do that for their riders - are you suggesting that not keeping them fed didn't hamper their performance? Forget drugs, if you don't get your carbs in then you're going nowhere fast. He made almost all of the time up on the descents and flats not the climbs, he was less fatigued than Doumoulin and Yates who had been racing hard for two weeks - especially Yates who was gong to crack whatever, and Froome hadn't been full on racing, that the Sky train was out if full force and organised, no other team was organised, and when Froome went nobody chased him down as they were all a bunch of individuals and DM left it way to late to try to chase him down and couldn't live with his speed of descent, wasn't fed properly or supported by any of his team or any of the other riders who were all fanning about slowing down the pace and riding a completely different race. And also Froome's numbers were not superhuman. But yeah, ignore all that meticulous planning and the fact it was an all or nothing play by Sky who rolled the dice and took a chance and it paid out for them, it's much simpler to just say he was doping off the back of one irronious result for a substance that is not banned and no other (as far as I'm aware) unusual results through all the testing he's had over the years.
If the system can be gained and Froome is doing it then the assumption has to be that everyone is. And I assume his drugs tests post stage 19 are clear? I've not heard anything yet.
Just face it, Froome is one of the best riders out there, if not the best, but the difference is the Sky team and their approach. They simply do a better job than any other team. Froome didn't win stage 19 by himself. He was helped by his team (unlike any of his competitors), but it was ultimately sealed by the woeful mistakes and errors of his competitors. their race craft was left wanting that day and left themselves looking amateur with way too much to do in the face of the organised onslaught from Sky. It was a classic smash and grab job.
I don't know if Froome is doping, it will come out eventually. I hope he's not, but if he is then he'll get what's coming to him and he'll deserve it.
Froome should be racing because the rules and system says he can - it's that simple. It's black and white, binary. If you don't like the rules then don't blame Froome and Sky. Froome isn't being afforded any special treatment and due process is being followed - it's happened before with other riders. The organisers of the TDF could prevent him from racing, but if they do that and Froome clears his name then they will have egg on their face and that would be just as damaging outcome than letting him race only for him to be retrospectively banned. Credibility works both ways...searching out the genuine dopers and addressing any anomalies of the process fairly and clearing any innocent riders.
As to other riders crying foul, well they would wouldn't they. They were made to look pretty pathetic. Classic case of sour grapes and a bit of politic playing - the best way to beat Froome is to try to get him banned from racing, so it suits them to add fuel to the fire of doubt and suspicion.
you seriously think 4 consecutive GTs is “normal” and doesn’t raise an eyebrow? Wow! I’ve a couple of bridges to sell, maybe your interested?
I take from this that you have already decided that he is a doper & that the Salbutamol AAF is just a convenient stick to beat him with.
Wow, the true believers are in tonight. Take a bow!
Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I’ll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets — this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive le Tour forever!
i never was one much for big dreams.
Just how many livestrong bands did you buy metalheart?
the best way to beat Froome is to try to get him banned from racing
the. bastards, who spiked our Chris’s piss with Salbutamol, was them bloody frenchies? They’ve got in for st Chris they have, they don’t even want him at their tour 😭
Wow, the true believers are in tonight. Take a bow!
Nope. I am not much of a Froome fan. I hate the way he looks on a bike, he gives a dull interview, Sky's tactics generally bore me & I find Brailsford a bit repellant. However... If he is guilty of doping (& he might be) I don't understand why he would choose to use Salbutamol in the context of the Vuelta. So in the absence of any other evidence I don't see why he shouldn't ride. Otherwise it just seems to be mindless vitriol coming out.
Just how many livestrong bands did you buy
ah, you think I’m a LA fanboi on the rebound do you? Naw, I decided anybody who treated Bassons the way he did had to be doper. There were a lot people who defended LA as virulently as you do Froome around then, where did they all go I wonder.... i did laugh at my mates who bought them though.
I don’t understand why he would choose to use Salbutamol in the context of the Vuelta.
Translation they are one step ahead...
So in the absence of any other evidence
Sky and TUE!! Like every other team running the rules to the line == Doping
I don’t see why he shouldn’t ride.
But he must be cheating
Otherwise it just seems to be mindless vitriol coming out.
Yep that is where we are at... no matter what happens from the day he started to come through he was doping to some people, they will insist that you prove the negative for them and then will not believe it.
Sky and TUE!! Like every other team running the rules to the line
see that’s the difference between you and me, I think gaming the rules to legalise doping is cheating.
pardon me for having morals and scruples.
what was in that Jiffy bag, and just who was it for again? Go on, like Dave I’ll give you three tries, give me a laugh 😂
How many Grand Tours do you think people should be allowed to win before an automatic ban?
see that’s the difference between you and me, I think gaming the rules to legalise doping ischeating.
pardon me for having morals and scruples.
Well you don't make the rules, I think close passing should result in execution but I'm not in charge.
what was in that Jiffy bag, and just who was it for again? Go on, like Dave I’ll give you three tries, give me a laugh
Massive sexy toys
Massive sexy toys
ah, that’s why he rides up hill seated...
Well you don’t make the rules
?! How old are you? I can’t express an opinion that differs from yours?
im off to tell the ASO it’s their ball....
This whole thread just shows us how toxic Armstrong's legacy is.
Any suspicion now and the rider is irredeemably tainted, even if it turns out to be a legal and prescribed medication.
I hope Froome is clear, but if not ban him for life.
How many Grand Tours do you think people should be allowed to win before an automatic ban?
?! When did you stop beating your wife?
?! When did you stop beating your wife?
Thursday, she finally stopped rambling on about inhaler abuse
you know what, I’ll just stick with sanctimonious thanks very much. It looks better than your option.
How many Grand Tours do you think people should be allowed to win before an automatic ban?
?! When did you stop beating your wife?
You are the one presupposing guilt on the basis of how many bike races somebody has won, not me.
you know what, I’ll just stick with sanctimonious thanks very much. It looks better than your option.
My opinion is that people will work to the limits imposed, it happens in business, sport and life. If you wish to draw a moral line inside the limit of the rules be prepared for your lines to be crossed.
BUT
to declare somebody a cheat for not obeying your rules is wrong,
I asked how many before you raised the eye brow. Iirc only Merckx & Hainault have held three consecutive GTs before. Has anybody won 4 in a row? Chris Froome is that man?!?
anyway here’s what a sports lawyer thinks: https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/could-froome-lose-his-giro-or-be-blocked-from-the-tour-a-sports-lawyer-qa/
Let me guess, you work for a bank, am I right?
So what do you think the Lawyer thinks?
How will it be decided which results Froome will lose if he does get a ban? Does the independent arbitrator decide that?
The situation is unclear but it seems if Froome gets a ban, then he will definitely lose the Vuelta title from September 2017, as that was when the tests showed his [salbutamol levels were too high]. If, as he could have done under the UCI rules, he opted to “self provisionally suspend” after the Vuelta, and remained self-suspended while this legal process was ongoing, he could then have used his period of self-suspension to get any sanction backdated to the date of the adverse test (September 7). He didn’t do that as he wanted to ride and win in the World Champs, Giro etc.
UCI anti-doping rules state [ed. see 10.11 here] if the case against Froome is proven, he is banned from the date of the UCI anti-doping hearing. The independent arbitrator also however appears to have the power [ed. under 10.8], “unless fairness requires otherwise”, to render void all competitive results that the rider has obtained from the date of the positive sample to the date of ineligibility.
This possibly puts Froome’s World and Giro titles into play. Whether the UCI independent arbitrator would do this is a matter for him. Precedent on backdating bans in cycling exists and notably Contador’s case at CAS in 2012. One of the arbitrators on that case was Ulrich Haas, who is the UCI independent arbitrator in the Froome case.
By not accepting on the day he now risks more, his reputation would have been gone then if he had admitted it but there probably would have been a relatively small punishment that would probably have had him back in time for the tour, instead he has risked it all, gone all in so to say on being innocent. What does that tell you? When backed into a corner do you bet the house on it?
Edit - who you having a go at?
Let me guess, you work for a bank, am I right?
You.
i posted it as I thought (other) people might be interested in what a lawyer thought.
tbh I not really interested in your opinion on it. You’re too morally ambiguous for my liking.
The lawyer doesn't say very much there, he mostly says that nothing is proven, nothing is certain and if they can't prove it wasn't a bad test or a test not working they could be in trouble.
I'm not sure how my morals are ambiguous, I say what rules are written down are the rules
Yes he should race. The rules regarding an AAF are clear and due process has been followed.
With all this talk of Froome it’s easy to forget S Yates’AAF for asthma treatment, for which he did not had a PED. Consider also his DS Matt White is a former doper with USPS and was sacked as Oz national coach and Garmin for previous doping offences.
Consider also how fresh Chaves and Yates looked at the top of Etna - no signs of fatigue they simply rode away from everyone and made some good rider look ordinary. They just didn’t look like they’d gone into the red once on that climb.
Then consider how spectacularly backwards Chaves went. He claimed “just a bad day, you know... this is bike racing”. He looked seriously ill. Was he ill? Nobody claimed this. It was relatively early in the race and he’s young yet fairly experienced enough to recover very quickly from a big effort. That said, it didn’t even look like a big effort he just rode away.
i then think of Yates going backwards. Again, he looked terrible, sick not just tired.
Contrast that with Froome who really fought to get off the front with numerous attacks on the Zoncolan before he eventually broke free nor far from the line. He looked broken after that stage. Chaves & Yates looked like they could do it all again after Etna.
I wonder why people aren’t suspicious of Yates & Chaves? I mean, in the past when a rider goes so spectacularly backwards after looking so good, we’ve since found it was usually down to a bad bag of blood. I wonder why nobody seems to be saying this now? It’s not like Mat White wouldn’t know about these things after his USPS experiences...
I think gaming the rules to legalise doping is cheating
Playing to the rules is cheating? Well I never.
I wonder why people aren’t suspicious of Yates & Chaves?
To a point we have to trust the anti doping bodies and the UCI to do their jobs. Simply using the past as an example of why it can't be working now is flawed.
If in the past the majority were doping then you were looking at the efforts of doper vs doper. Today we should have clean vs clean, blowing up is part of that. When chaves went backwards, team instructions could almost be make sure you make the cut off and save yourself for the rest.
With all this talk of Froome it’s easy to forget S Yates’AAF for asthma treatment, for which he did not had a PED
Yates did not have an AAF. He received a ban because he was treated with a prohibited substance and didn't apply for the required TUE. So the system worked and he was caught, although you can argue whether a four month ban for "non-intentional doping" is a reasonable sanction or not. I think if the sanctions are too lenient, there's going to be a temptation for unscrupulous teams to take a risk, misuse medical treatments and just claim they forgot to fill out the TUE form, if they get caught.
Bardet & Dumoulin pitch in. Unsurprisingly they say Froome shouldn't ride:
Bardet & Dumoulin pitch in. Unsurprisingly they say Froome shouldn’t ride:
Not calling them hypocrites. But they've not been put in the same position. I'd bet if something similar happened to them, and they believed they'd done no wrong, they'd do the same as Froome and Sky.
As would more or less every other professional rider.
If Froome did withdraw it would be trebles all round in any team with GC contender.
Good rallying call for all the locals to get the fancy dress out really and give him a hard time. I would have said including a "But I want everyone to respect the riders and the racing"
Playing to the rules is cheating?
so, you think taking performance enhancing drugs purely for performance enhancement purposes (and lying about it) is perfectly acceptable and all part of the game?
The rules are the rules. If the rules don't work then change them, don't get pissy at teams for pushing them as far as they can go, because if one team isn't doing it you can be sure all the other ones are.
As for Froome, it's shame his AAF was leaked, he's now in a position that he shouldn't be in and that other athletes in a similar position have avoided. Innocent until proven guilty imo. The evidence should be presented and a verdict handed down. It's the only fair way of doing things, especially given that the rule that has potentially been broken is about a) how much of the drug you can take at a time, not how much is in your system later and b) it's a drug with a debatable performance enhancing effect.
Funny you should mention Yates drug ban. Compare how he reacted to (what is claimed to be a simple failure to register a TUE for asthma medication) to somebody else in a similar situation... 🤣
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simon-yates-accepts-four-month-ban-and-apologises/
One of the reasons people aren’t flagging up Yates is that their man beat him, so therefore must be cleanz. Simple.
i do find it hilarious dismissing observational (ie impirical) evidence as completely flawed yet adhering to the actual definition of insanity. Go fanboy fan!
what iteration of we’re all cleanz now (honest) are we on now? The post Festina ‘99 tour was dubbed the tour of redemption (that went well) and then there was the memo that went round after lance disappeared for everyone that they can stop doping now, and then the BP which cured everything... then the sky we’re all cleanz (apart form the gaming TUEs and dodgy Jiffy bags (oh and the mistaken test delivery)). I just can’t keep up.
You need to pace yourself a bit. There's not going to be an outcome from the AAF process for months yet, and you are just going to blow up and go out the back on the first climb if you try and keep up this level of outrage till then.
Anyone else have an image of Metalheart sat on his sofa for the Tour in his pants just lathering at the mouth and self-flagellating whilst it's on dribbling every time Sky come on "fan boyz, fan boyz, with their logical arguments, fan boyz..." For someone who has been watching the sport since the 80's he seems to hate it...... maybe a switch to crown bowling or all the elderly doping on warfarin and Werthers Original?!
.....on the flip side, Sky have neutralised the Dauphine completely and made it dull, all top 4 riders despite not being able to stay upright on their bikes again... Who is their tyre sponsor?
You fan bois really are lapping up the “marginal gains” cr@p - it’s so full of holes it’s laughable....
But hey, keep knocking back the SIS “secret nutrional weapon”, it’s only been on sale from other companies for a decade!
🤣
Read back through my posts, where have i ever mentioned being a fan-boy? Every post actually says the opposite, i am not a fan of Sky, i find them too clinical and soulless, i don't like what happened with Wiggins, i think Brailsford has made a lot of mistakes when it comes to PR and the media recently and they are far from the transparent team they set out to be, how is that a fan-boy? I really wanted Yates to win, but was his riding any less incredible (for 2 1/2 weeks, not one stage) than Froome's, he rode out of his absolute skin, he must of been on at least 10 different drugs then mustn't he?
What i have done is given a few logical arguments that Froome's ride on Giro wasn't some drug fuelled charge, and how it was possible, me sat here with my Sports Science degree, what would i know....
What makes me laugh, is people that provide no logical argument, never actually cite any actual science, just dismiss anyone that doesn't have same opinion as them as "fan-boys" or something else dismissive in a Daily Mail Comments Section sort of way instead of reading the post clearly... if there is any big words you want explaining?
Again if you read my posts, you'll see my comments about how i hate doping and how it ruined "my" sport of rugby, i've sat next to someone opening taking steroids and have been offered them on many occasions, i'd love all sport to be clean
Consider also how fresh Chaves and Yates looked at the top of Etna – no signs of fatigue they simply rode away from everyone and made some good rider look ordinary. They just didn’t look like they’d gone into the red once on that climb.
They are pure climbers - that’s their job. Equally, Dumoilin looks wrecked at the top of every big climb but does his job in the TT. What would be weird would be if Yates or Chaves then mullered everyone in the TT, or decided to mix it with Sagan in a sprint, or go on a heroic 80km solo. There’s only one rider who can do all of that, which is why so much suspicion falls on him, especially when he is pulled up for dodgy blood results and can’t explain it.
Everyone else must really be shit at the Dauphine as although those top 3 riders are all good, it seems bizarre that nobody is getting close. Bardet is never going to win the tour if he's losing minutes at a time in every TT.
so, you think taking performance enhancing drugs purely for performance enhancement purposes (and lying about it) is perfectly acceptable and all part of the game?
Within the rules, absolutely.
What makes me laugh, is people that provide no logical argument, never actually cite any actual science
Indeed. And what if someone did turn up who was a genuine freak of nature and just really good - how could they avoid this kind of suspicion?
There’s only one rider who can do all of that, which is why so much suspicion falls on him, especially when he is pulled up for dodgy blood results and can’t explain it.
Who got pulled for 'dodgy blood results'? Genuinely curious.
Not necessarily you scud - but some of the other stuff is hysterical...
@molgrips - this is it, any rider like Froome, Dumoulin etc already are a freak of nature, what they do for 3 weeks isn't training alone, 50% of it is purely genetics, i think everyone who ever saw Froome ride early on will state he was a terrible cyclist when it came to bike handling, he struggled to ride in the bunch etc. But they knew he had a massive VO2 so knew he had potential.
Dumoulin is far from a classical climber, but again, they know his VO2, what power he can put out for how long, and that he is why he is good a those climbs that are essentially a TT constant effort.
I think this is why Froome is coming under increased scrutiny, he is all of a sudden climbing, like a proper climber, he is attacking, not just riding to power and he has learnt how to descend, to me that it worth a lot more, than any tiny gain he may of got from Salbutomol, that was training and race craft, but these things are never mentioned.
Indeed. And what if someone did turn up who was a genuine freak of nature and just really good – how could they avoid this kind of suspicion?
That's partly what the biological passport system and anti-doping as a whole is meant to do. But the problem is that elite athletes are almost by definition physiological freaks to some extent. The idea that there's a sort of level playing field where we all have the same potential, just isn't realistic.
You or I could do the same level of training - or try to - as a top pro elite cyclist and sure, we'd end up being a faster donkey, but without the right genes and physiology, you're never going to reach elite level. I think I may have mentioned it before, but there was a fascinating documentary a few years back where the world record hurdler Colin Jackson went on a exploratory journey into his physiological make-up.
Turned out that that alongside Jamaican genes and quite a high composition of fast twitch muscle fibres, he also had incredibly rare 'super high twitch' fibres, which they only knew because they took a biopsy of his quadriceps and analysed it. His muscles simply were naturally more explosive than most athletes.
I'm not, before people start ripping into me, saying that this proves Froome is clean. Or that Sagan is naturally gifted or whatever. I'm just using it to show that sometimes top athletes really do have rare physiological attributes.
As to how they can 'avoid this type of suspicion' I guess the bottom line is that in absolute terms, they can't. There will always be a belief by some that any sort of outstanding performance is evidence of cheating. What you can do is build an anti-doping infrastructure that's as robust and thorough as possible, so that people can reasonably have a high level of trust in it and its ability to detect cheats.
Finally, in the end, pro cycling is just a glorified entertainment. It's grown men and women riding bikes for money to amuse spectators. There are plenty more things in the world that are deserving of more anger and frothing fury than whether a professional cyclist is or is not cheating.
“Indeed. And what if someone did turn up who was a genuine freak of nature and just really good – how could they avoid this kind of suspicion?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RsDOt3_F490
Who got pulled for ‘dodgy blood results’? Genuinely curious.
Apologies. Urine not blood. I forgot about the ****tish levels of pedantry on here.
I think this is why Froome is coming under increased scrutiny, he is all of a sudden climbing, like a proper climber, he is attacking, not just riding to power and he has learnt how to descend, to me that it worth a lot more, than any tiny gain he may of got from Salbutomol, that was training and race craft, but these things are never mentioned.
Erm... that's not strictly true.. Froomidge has always been a decent climber, back in the Barloworld days his Vuelta performance back then was pretty damn amazing. He has always had a massive VO2 capacity true, and his race craft was a little suspect but he was always a better descender than Wiggo...
So really all he's done is perfect his flaws to become much better overall, hence his GC contentions.
Apologies. Urine not blood. I forgot about the **** levels of pedantry on here.
Sorry petal, didn't mean to upset you. I was genuinely curious as to whether someone had failed a blood test that I didn't know about rather than being pedantic for the sake of it.
Scud - thing is - the people who believe Froome has doped and been caught have provided plenty of logical argument as to how they have arrived at their position but the fanbois have their heads buried deep in the sand
tom Howard - you really think taking powerful steroids before a race under the pretence of a TUE is acceptable? Both Froome and wiggins have done this and under the circumstances where these drugs are actually needed the person who was ill would be in hospital not taking part in a bike race.
It stinks.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Scud – thing is – the people who believe Froome has doped and been caught have provided plenty of innuendo as to how they have arrived at their position but the rest are waiting on proof
FTFY
tom Howard – you really think taking powerful steroids before a race under the pretence of a TUE is acceptable?
take it up with WADA/UCI
No scotroutes - none of us have proof either way but the post I refereed to stated "is people that provide no logical argument" which is bollox of the highest order. they might be right or they might be wrong but the argument is logically sound and coherent.
Apologies. Urine not blood. I forgot about the **** levels of pedantry on here.
Sorry if you think it's pedantic, but surely if Froome was genuinely doping it would have shown in BP, etc. as well.
I know someone said quack quack up there, i'm going to echo it. But only in the sense that TO ME everything I've read about this situation sounds like a test that isn't fit for purpose / got messed up somehow. I can't see any point why you'd dope excess levels of salbutomol mid race, and while others are positing stuff like masking, or some unknown effect that we haven't discovered yet, I've yet to see any proof or even hint of proof to that other than 'it's Sky, they must be cheating'
I know Sky aren't unsullied based on past evidence, and I too am not a fanboy (the Red-Yellow-Pink taunt previously was a deliberate troll, I'm sorry) but based only on the evidence I see before me specifically to this case I'm still on the fence re the outcome but firmly in the innocent till guilty camp.
none of us have proof either way but the post I refereed to stated “is people that provide no logical argument” which is bollox of the highest order.
What you suggested was that the people not shouting cheat from the rooftops have not provided a logical argument. that is untrue.
In summary for the burn him side
He took a huge amount on one day
We can't tell you why you would take a huge amount on one day
We can't give a single performance boosting reason for taking that at the back end of a tour
Dopers are always one step ahead
He has been taking it for months they screwed up his masking agent
They were using blood doping
He's a cheat....
I doubt Wada or UCI thought there would be doctors willing to break the Hippocratic oath to the point of claiming a powerful steroid was for an illness when it at best was a position that medically is extremely dubious.
Wiggins one was the worst Large injectable doses of a very powerful steroid before races he won - a drug that normally would only be used under the guidance of a respiratory consultant for extreme life threatening illness in people in hospital.
But - we all have entrenched positions and only one person knows the truth. From where I sit the folk who think Froome and sky are clean are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring a mountain of evidence.
But – we all have entrenched positions and only one person knows the truth. From where I sit the folk who think Froome and sky are clean are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring a mountain of evidence.
What evidence - I mean actual evidence not just your opinion or speculation
I doubt Wada or UCI thought there would be doctors willing to break the Hippocratic oath to the point of claiming a powerful steroid was for an illness when it at best was a position that medically is extremely dubious
Have they changed their position?
But – we all have entrenched positions and only one person knows the truth.
To be fair, you don't so much have an entrenched position as a whole, carefully fabricated Maginot Line-style fortification 🙂
The Maginot Line worked out so well didn't it?