You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I’ve read about this situation sounds like a test that isn’t fit for purpose / got messed up somehow.
This is something I've been wondering about, could it be taking ages because the evidence presented casts doubt on the veracity of the test, and that means that UCI/WADA will have some serious scrambling around to do to not get utterly shat on by the athletes who've been banned becasue of it? If you're banned by a test that is later proven to be unreliable, can you sue for loss of winnings/associated sponship/damage to your reputation?
MIke - evidence. the AAF for a start
then there is all the evidence presented to the HOC plus what we know about the steroid use under the TUEs and the mysterious jiffy bag and so on along with the conveniently missing laptop.
Most is circumstantial however for sure.
Now some see all this and see only innuendo and smear, some see a load of signposts all pointing in one direction
None of us are going to change our positions and I understand the point of innocent until guilty but my personal opinion is at the very best gaming the system and being caught out going too far.
MIke – evidence. the AAF for a start
Which is evidence of what exactly?
then
Most is circumstantial however for sure.
and not related to this case or time period
Now some see all this and see only innuendo and smear, some see a load of signposts all pointing in one direction
What I don't see is any real evidence there, I see speculation, extrapolation and at best some kind of circumstantial evidence
You might not change your already established conclusion but I'd suggest not claiming you have lots of evidence or all the evidence points to etc.
Jiffy bag? Are you saying that Froome is guilty by association then?
I expect your next move will be posting a photo of Froome, Wiggins, Jimmy Saville and Queen Liz all in the same room and claiming they're all lizards.
MIke – evidence. the AAF for a start
It's not evidence of actual performace enhancing drug use. The fact you keep calling it 'a steriod' doesn't make it the same as performance enhancing steriod abuse.
Molgrips - the steroid that I refer to with Froome is his use under TUE of prednisilone before he won one of the big races a year or two ago. Dubious if not as stinking as Wiggins use of steriods under TUE.
Wada believe that large systemic does of salbutomol is performance enhancing hence the limit. A limit that is very geneously set so as to not get false positives but that Froome went over by a huge amount.
When we have a pattern of behaviour by a team over a long time then that again is evidence of that teams actions.
For what its worth I don't believe any top team could withstand the scrutiny aimed at Sky and I don't believe there are any clean winners of major tours.
i think i'll drop out of this argument as there is no point when people don't actually read what you type, after every post i've been called some sort of fanboy, when every post i've pointed why i'm not a fan of Sky!
If any of you are into your podcasts though - those of you interested in the science, listen to Bespoked BBC podcast this week, the "haterz" can listen to it and froth at the mouth....
**** your science, I'm a (working) design engineer. I use rule of thumb which is built up over years of experience.
Fan I wis a wee loon, back in the eighties, you had climbers and you had timetriallers.
Climbers were small and skinny (not alien like like they are today) and timetriallers were beefy. The tour was a mix of both and the fight was (usually) between the two types as climbers can't push big gears and tters have bulk.
When tters (eg Indurain) start passing the climbers on the hill, something ain't right.
When climbers are putting in the fast times on the flat then something ain't right....
Losing weight and increasing power? Well, I need a Scotty from star trek meme/gif...
So, no I don't buy your pseudo science bullshit.
Especially not after miraculous transformations from zero to hero in three weeks. Sorry, but i will always remain suspicious in these circumstances.
Well, that’s my mind changed..
OK, i'll bite here, if science has nothing to do with it whatsover, i'll put myself forward as a candidate, spent 20 years as a rugby prop-forward, most of those years at 18 stone, but with about a 32 inch waist. So a big old lump, but with one advantage, at 18 stone, i could run 100m in just over 11 seconds, so with a low centre of gravity and a good sprint, i was often at the breakdown before the back row and had a decent career, i played to international level and for the army in Union and paid my way through Uni playing league.
After breaking two vertebra in my neck, i gave up, got fat and after a few years bought a mountain bike purely because it looked strong enough to carry my weight without breaking. i broke out my old sports science text books, brought a few new books on training and so forth, and i knuckled down with the realisation that i would never be a racer but enjoyed long days on the bike, but i have gone on to ride events like Dragon Devil at 186 miles and 4500m of climbing and Newcastle to London in 19 1/2 hours which was 310 miles, i did that through applying a bit of thought to it, applying a bit of science, how do i get up a climb, i lose weight and i try to up power that is sustainable not just the explosive power of the first 3 seconds of a scrum.
I learnt exactly how many grams of carbs per hour i needed, i learnt how best to get those carbs into me. I found that after 6 hours plus, i needed to start introducing protein back into the mix again etc. i applied some thought...
To say all sports science is baloney is daft..
To say that a TT'er can't be a climber and visa versa is bull too. TT is putting out "X" amount of power that you know you can sustain for "Y" amount of time in its simplest form. You look at Dumoulin and Froome and those that can TT, and that is essentially what they are doing on a hill, they know the climb, they know where the red-line is for their power output and they know what they can sustain, then they go about fuelling it right. It can be dull and makes the sport more like a science class, when all you look at is numbers, maybe the racing of old was more exciting, but that is modern sport.
You have to be a climber AND a TT'er to win GC, simple as that.
Look at Yates, for his build and the fact he is the shape of a climber of the 80's, his TT was brilliant in the Giro, therefore he must be on drugs? It simply could not of come from training, knowing it was his weakness, knowing he needed to give it all to stay ahead (and ultimately probably went to far in to the red to do so) - must all be drugs!?
Do i believe cycling is clean, no, not at all, i think it is "cleaner". Times and top speeds having come down show that. Do i think Sky and Froome, are 100% clean, i don't know. i think Sky have definitely flaunted the grey areas, but no more than any other team probably and a lot less than some. But to say the advances in sports science and physiology are all b**locks, is just plain daft?
Scud - actually I have read your input and you seem have the best grasp of all this of anyone that is commenting. We are not actually that far apart - just that you are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. I am not.
Do i believe cycling is clean, no, not at all, i think it is “cleaner”. Times and top speeds having come down show that. Do i think Sky and Froome, are 100% clean, i don’t know. i think Sky have definitely flaunted the grey areas, but no more than any other team probably and a lot less than some.
this I can completely get behind bar you are giving the benefit of the doubt in that you "don't know" if they are clean. I don't know either - none of us can but I believe they are not clean
In general. Sky publicly claimed to be a new paradigm of cleaner than clean bike racing. they have been proven to be liars ( NO needles) they have been proven to be gaming the TUE system. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence of going beyond exploiting grey areas ( the jiffy bag, the lost laptop, unexplained large amounts of banned drugs). The result of this is in my eyes they have no credibility and I don't believe a word coming out of the team.
Molgrips – the steroid that I refer to with Froome is his use under TUE of prednisilone before he won one of the big races a year or two ago. Dubious if not as stinking as Wiggins use of steriods under TUE.
So, the rules allow medical use of certain drugs, but you think playing by the rules is cheating? These drugs do have a medial use, right - so should a cyclist NOT use a drug to help a medical condition, when the rules allow it? If you are suggesting that the medical condition was invented for the purposes of increasing performance - well that's very cynical, and you may as well give up because what you're effectively doing is trying to tear down a sport we enjoy watching just because YOU're a miserable cynical bugger.
they have been proven to be gaming the TUE system
Proven to be gaming the system? You mean making up medial conditions when none existed?
MIke – evidence. the AAF for a start
Getting an AAF is only evidence of having an AAF. Nothing more.
Apparently there are around 150 AAFs in cycling a year.
Around half of them turn into bans. The rest are either no case to answer, a TUE is present or the evidence provided means no further action.
There are a few reports giving statistical breakdowns on the WADA website if you are interested.
It’s those cheating rascals in team Novo Nordisk I can’t stand, blatantly using banned drugs under TUE...
😉
The thing is i hate drugs in sport at all levels, it makes an unfair playing field, and to read some of the books of the Armstrong era and of those that tried to ride clean and the bullying that went with that is despicable.
What i personally find interesting, and why i think i am drawn to sports that have real extremes, such as grand tour cycling, is because i like to see, read and learn about people right on their physical edge, the are "freaks" and most of the time are one sneeze away from illness, that after 3 weeks of racing it can come down to seconds beggars belief. I think the issue is, you have to have some faith, otherwise i'll just become bitter and the sport too far tarnished for me to watch it again.
I love following coverage of the Tour Divide, Trans Continental and the great Mike Hall, because to me that really is what i love seeing in it's purest form, people pushing themselves to do extraordinary things.
ha, ha as to Novo Nordisk team, my 8 year old daughter is T1, so the way they race, really does impress me!
This is something I’ve been wondering about, could it be taking ages because the evidence presented casts doubt on the veracity of the test
These things take ages simply because there is a lot of money and many lawyers involved. Any case involving a high profile athlete who can afford a good legal team usually takes a significant amount of time to play out. That's just the nature of the legal process. If you are contesting a testing result, the obvious lines of defence are either "my testing process was invalid" or "I accept the test result, but I returned an adverse result because of {insert valid excuse here}, not because I was doing something naughty".
There have been a number of cases where athletes have used the "invalid testing process" defence (e.g. Diane Modahl successfully won an appeal because she argued that her sample had degrated after being incorrectly stored in a heated room for 3 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Modahl#Fight_against_positive_drug_test).
Some people have suggested (i.e. more speculation) that rather than questioning the circumstances of Froome's specific testing procedure, Sky might try to challenge the fundamental validity of the Salbutamol test itself. That sounds like a tougher defence. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a couple of studies have questioned Salbutamol testing, but these studies have themselves been criticised, so I don't think there has been any serious evidence (so far) that the Salbutamol test is inherently flawed.
No molgrips -What I am saying is the drugs they used under TUE are normally only given to people ( especially in Wiggins case) who are extremely unwell and would be hardly able to walk let alone ride a grand tour. the illness would be there but instead of using the least strong drug possible to treat them in the lowest possible dose they used the strongest possible drug in the highest possible dose simply because it had performance enhancing effects. IE the illness was an excuse to use a PED / a means of getting the TUE
3 of team skys grand tour wins were won by riders who had a serious enough illness to require extremely powerful drugs in the weeks before. Its not really credible. If the illness was that severe that they required injections of very powerful steroids they would not have been able to ride.
( I can't remember if Froomes prednisilone was injected or oral)
(edit - I checked - Froomes TUE was for oral)
In Wiggins case the steroid used is normally only given under the care of a hospital consultant to people in hospital and is also a well known PED
Read this molgrips
In Wiggins case the steroid used is normally only given under the care of a hospital consultant to people in hospital and is also a well known PED
Read this molgrips
and the UCI did?
After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) has reviewed your application, you may be given authorization to obtain treatment.
The UCI TUEC is composed of independent experts in the fields of clinical sports and exercise medicine. It is the CADF, independent entity mandated by the UCI to run the bulk of its anti-doping program, that provides administrative support to the TUEC,
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/
I know there have been some updates but the UCI have oversight over the process.
We are now heading into morality and reading of the rules to maximise what you can do.
Do you have clear evidence of people taking things that were not approved by the UCI?
What TJ says about Wiggins is all correct, but the key thing is that he didn't break the rules, so there was no doping offence. However, you might well argue that there is a case to tighten up the TUE procedure to stop people legally deploying unnecessarily powerful drugs in the future.
One thing that puzzled me about the Wiggins case was why there were not more riders using the loophole. The UCI website publishes the total number of TUEs they issue:
Year TUEs granted
2009 239
2010 97
2011 55
2012 46
2013 31
2014 25
2015 13
2016 15
2017 20
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/
I believe this covers all the elite riders in the top tier testing pool, because they have to get TUEs through the UCI, not via their national governing bodies. The big drop off after 2009 is because the rules around Salbutamol changed, so a TUE was not required for normal inhaler use.
The numbers seem quite low in recent years, and I would have expected more teams would be taking advantage of the system, unless Sky had genuinely spotted a performance enhancing treatment that no one else knew about.
"Sky might try to challenge the fundamental validity of the Salbutamol test itself."
I think this is exactly what Sky will do which is why this is taking so long to sort..
I think this is exactly what Sky will do which is why this is taking so long to sort..
Which as pointed out in the lawyers opinion before means that they risk a lot more if it goes wrong. The ban could have been done by now, here he is risking every race between the test and the verdict plus any ban on top of this.
It's a high risk strategy if you are guilty.
Also if they are right is it a good thing that this is brought to light?
“In general. Sky publicly claimed to be a new paradigm of cleaner than clean bike racing. they have been proven to be liars ( NO needles) they have been proven to be gaming the TUE system. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence of going beyond exploiting grey areas ( the jiffy bag, the lost laptop, unexplained large amounts of banned drugs). The result of this is in my eyes they have no credibility and I don’t believe a word coming out of the team.”
+1.
In addition, their “marginal gains” BS nutrition plan with SIS. Yet another highly dubious claim!
Ta KCR - I am astonished at the low numbers of TUEs. I assumed all top riders were at it. Puts Wiggins and Froome in an even worse light considering how many of the top riders are asthmatic.
good point about faith Scud - trouble is for me the Wiggins case and other sky shenanigans that have come to light destroyed mine.
What I am saying is the drugs they used under TUE are normally only given to people ( especially in Wiggins case) who are extremely unwell and would be hardly able to walk let alone ride a grand tour.
Normally, yes. But pretty silly to apply normal clinical guidelines to people and situations that are nearly as far from normal as you can get.
Thing is - I don't WANT to believe they are cheating, because it will ruin something I enjoy. I will, if enough evidence appears - I initially believed Armstrong before I knew enough about cycling. But for now I want to enjoy it and I want to support someone in a good race. For me, the evidence is not yet enough to make me change my mind.
Let me ask, TJ - are you actually a cycling fan? Do you or have you ever watched grand tours and enjoyed them?
I used to Molgrips. Mrs TJ does and still enjoys them so I see the odd bit but for me the Wiggins case meant I lost all faith. Its such an obvious gaming of the system to gain an advantage.
"Thing is – I don’t WANT to believe they are cheating, because it will ruin something I enjoy."
I struggle with this too - this year I'm going to try & watch the Tour fully accepting the possibility that most are gaming the system in some way to a lesser or greater extent.....
I'm not confident I'm going to succeed!
I struggle with this too – this year I’m going to try & watch the Tour fully accepting the possibility that most are gaming the system in some way to a lesser or greater extent…..
Id be disappointed if they weren’t. Look at what F1 engineers do. Go over the rules with a fine tooth comb to try and find and gain an advantage. Drivers cutting corners as far as they can get away with etc
This is no different. As long as they stay in the rules, I’m happy
“Thing is – I don’t WANT to believe they are cheating, because it will ruin something I enjoy.”
What has been defined so far is not cheating, you may not like the way the rules have been used but it is still within the rules, cycling does not have the spirit of the game stuff in there like cricket etc. It has rules, if you go beyond these lines you will have been cheating.
“Thing is – I don’t WANT to believe they are cheating, because it will ruin something I enjoy.”
Is the cheating bit not part of the spectacle, drama and pantomime? Rather than ruining the enjoyment for me it is part of enjoyment itself.
It is entertainment after all. It's not something that really matters.
A game is defined by its rules. If it is in the rules it is a legal move.
Dont like it? Find a new game.
The Maginot Line worked out so well didn’t it?
Jawohl! Klar... 🙂
😀
"Dont like it? Find a new game."
Now you're sounding desperate.
I like my heroes to not only be clean physically, but morally respectable too.
Perhaps my standards are just higher than yours...?
"What has been defined so far is not cheating"
Yet, others have been banned for having similar readings of the exact same drug?
Hmmmmmmm.
“What has been defined so far is not cheating”
Yet, others have been banned for having similar readings of the exact same drug?
Hmmmmmmm.
I know your struggling with the logic and rules so here we go again....
The aaf process is ongoing. Its different to a pass or fail drug test.
As part of the process the result needs explaining and understanding Once this process is complete we can pass judgement.
If the test is found to not be representative of the amount consumed would you accept that its good to know that.
Is the cheating bit not part of the spectacle, drama and pantomime? Rather than ruining the enjoyment for me it is part of enjoyment itself.
It is entertainment after all. It’s not something that really matters.
It's not just entertainment though. The same rules apply to everyone who races under UCI rules, from professional level down to weekend warriors. If you tolerate cheating at pro level, then where do you draw the line? Would you be happy to let kids juice up for a local cross race? I remember my disappointment when Robert Millar tested positive in '91 and couldn't take pro racing at face value at all after Festina in '98. However, I love bike racing as a competitor, so I want to see the authorities fighting as hard as possible to keep my sport clean. That's a battle that will never end, of course.
“In general. Sky publicly claimed to be a new paradigm of cleaner than clean bike racing. they have been proven to be liars ( NO needles) they have been proven to be gaming the TUE system. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence of going beyond exploiting grey areas ( the jiffy bag, the lost laptop, unexplained large amounts of banned drugs). The result of this is in my eyes they have no credibility and I don’t believe a word coming out of the team.”
also +1 except I'm editing to say they have lost credibility and I am healthily sceptical about what they say.
But you can't convict a criminal on trial on the basis of he committed a different offence in the past, you have to weigh and consider the evidence of the case in question. And while some may say that the evidence is already there, others will say (as I will) that the evidence is not yet cast iron either way, and needs to be examined properly. And in that respect I fall on the side of innocent until guilty.
Honestly, trolling and shouting aside i suspect most of us are either side of a very thin fence*, and convincing each other to swap sides won't happen until more comes to light / the case is 'heard' fully. Can that be done in the light of leaks, and yes, in the light of Sky being able to out-lawyer virtually anyone else..... another issue but that's not really Froome's fault.
* some people are however still in a completely different field altogether, and are using a megaphone to get their views over.
I am astonished at the low numbers of TUEs
The totals on the UCI website are for UCI issued TUEs for the RTP (Registered Testing Pool) which covers all the top pro riders (from memory, when I looked at this a while ago, that was were about 1300 riders in the RTP). The page states:
If you are included in the UCI RTP, you must apply for a TUE directly to the UCI through ADAMS exclusively.
If you already had a TUE granted by your NADO at the time of your inclusion in the UCI RTP, you must apply for the recognition of this TUE by the TUEC through ADAMS exclusively. If that TUE meets the criteria set out in Section 4.0 of the UCI TUE Regulations, then the TUEC shall recognize it.
So my interpretation is that there will be some pro TUEs issued by national bodies that are not counted in that UCI total, but you could only do that with an existing TUE that is in force at the point you first join the UCI RTP. Any subsequent TUEs would have to be registered via the UCI. In summary, then, if I am reading the website correctly, those totals should be indicative of the total number of pro TUEs. As you say, it is a surprisingly low number, given the controversy around TUE abuse.
This article from the Inner Ring is pretty good on the current situation with TUEs:
http://inrng.com/2018/03/tue-reform-cortisol-tests/
Also, one thing that's not aways mentioned re the Wiggins TUE is that it was reportedly applied for on the recommendation of an independent specialist - one Simon Hargreaves from Bolton NHS I think - who was consulted by Sky and not just by the team doctor, so the inference presumably is that he too would have been involved in 'gaming the system'. I don't think the Parliamentary Committee ever went that deep, he certainly didn't seem to have been called to give evidence, though maybe it would have been covered by medical confidentiality.
Also, ironically, it's not inconceivable that the reason Froome went over the urine test Salutamol limit was because he was reluctant to apply for a more potent solution using a TUE because he knew if it ever became known, he'd be accused of cheating.
I'm not defending anyone here before someone jumps down my virtual throat.
If I could be arsed I’d go find that link of Wiggins doctor at Garmin who was shocked at the prescription for asthma as, in his opinion, it was waaaaay over the top (and he also said wiggins didn’t need it to come fourth in the tour, after Lanceof course 🤣 ).
@scud: of course it’s not all sports science is bollocks. But the crap that some people have swallowed to explain stage 19 is impressive. If you managed to work out regimes that worked for you (not meaning any disrespect) then how can sky manage to ‘discover’ some unknown thing that explains it all away. Of course you need to good at both climbing and tting but winning stages in both against specialists is exactly what happened in the worst of the epo years. Applying occams razor...
one of the reason TUEs dropped is that you don’t need one for ‘normal’ use of certain asthma drugs...
one of the reason TUEs dropped is that you don’t need one for ‘normal’ use of certain asthma drugs…
and again, not cheating is it.....
one of the reason TUEs dropped is that you don’t need one for ‘normal’ use of certain asthma drugs…
Salbutamol by inhaler, post 2009, as posted under the original list of totals.
Sigh. Eyes wide shut.
you have no ethics, we get it. A while ago.
unless sky lawyers weasel him off, your boy is losing at least one GT. if you don’t like them rules, perhaps find a new game (is the theme today...)?
you have no ethics, we get it. A while ago.
I have ethics, I dont share your views. Be careful what you accuse people of.
unless sky lawyers weasel him off, your boy is losing at least one GT. if you don’t like them rules, perhaps find a new game (is the theme today…)?
What if you're wrong? What if it's decided he's 100% clean. What then?
Indeed mike - to some staying within the spirit of the rules is important, to others its Ok just to stay within the letter and gaming the rules is fine. A bit like diving in football. Is it cheating to dive to get a penalty or is it being clever to fall over at the slightest touch?
It's not though is it, diving for a penalty is like not hearing the slow down when your breaking and the gc leader slips a gear. Deliberate hand ball is like accelerating when he needs a shit. Taking a supplement to the regs is the same in all sport
What if you’re wrong? What if it’s decided he’s 100% clean. What then?
He isnt. Metalheart says so. Anyone who thinks otherwise is part of the conspiracy.
Or using extra aero gel
What if you’re wrong? What if it’s decided he’s 100% clean. What then?
then his expensive lawyers will have weaselled him off, duh. Do I really have to explain everything? 🤣
what you gonna do when he’s sanctioned (and the vuelta at least taken off him)? God the whining is going to be dreadful...
then his expensive lawyers will have weaselled him off, duh. Do I really have to explain everything?
Genuine question - is that the ONLY possible explanation you can find for him being found clean? Because if it is, there's no point trying to reason any further.
I don’t think anyone has said he’s definitely innocent yet Ironlung? Just not proven guilty. The only people who are sure of the result are the ones saying he is definitely guilty.
8 pages and the answer is still yes, he's allowed to race because that's what the rules say. We don't know if he's guilty or not because the UCI have the confidential submission
Pro cycling has its own set of routinely bent rules which are the equivalent of the football dive; the sticky bottle, boxing in during a sprint.... Because different athletes respond to different drugs I'm not sure if you can treat pharma in the same way, either it's banned, controlled or fill yer boots. The problem is the rules have too many drugs in the grey (controlled) area
seriously? are you still at school? you want to take piss out of me coz I’ve a pacemaker?
You have dished plenty out there princess. Suck it up and try and play nice.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/06/inscyd-view-a-scientific-analysis-of-chris-froomes-giro-ditalia-performance/
Interesting read, if ultimately maybe not all that useful.
Slandering Froome from your armchair is not cool Metalheart.
Don't feed the Troll.
Nah, we finished at 315. Then I did a play on words, based on your username.
who has said he is definitely innocent?
Then I did a play on words, based on your username.
go you. I see you boys are showing your true colours. nice.
Yeah, us dopers are all the same.
Genuine question – is that the ONLY possible explanation you can find for him being found clean?
genuine answer, I genuinely find sky unethical, I do not trust them. Brailsford is the master of obscurfation, refuses to answer a question straight and hides behind his opaque ‘transparency’.
Is there a possibility that he might be innocent? Well, there’s pretty much always a possibility. A bit like me winning the lottery, it’s a possibility....
“I know your struggling with the logic and rules so here we go again….”
Oh dear.
I understand perfectly, what I don’t understand is the allegiance to a highly dubious organisation with questionable ethics, shady history, lies about their awzum nutrition & a rider whose been found with illegal levels of a drug in his system for which others have been banned. Does all this & the parliamentary inquiry not cayse you to feel even the smallest amount of suspicion?
At what point do you start questioning Sky & Froome? When he shoots up with EPO on the side of the road?
Your loyalty is admirable but I think rather misplaced!
He’s currently innocent, but his future doesn’t look too bright..
metalheart - don't be so thin skinned. How was he to know you had a pacemaker - I didn't
tom Howard - quite a few folk on here have called Froome innocent
quite a few folk on here have called Froome innocent
because he isn't officially guilty, yet.
If he is then he is, if he's not then he's not. It'll all come out in the wash and until then we're all just arguing on the internet. And we all know what that makes us...
At what point do you start questioning Sky & Froome?
I have plenty of questions. What I don't have is answers.
a rider whose been found with illegal levels of a drug in his system for which others have been banned.
Technically the rule is about how much you intake in a period of time, not how much you have in your system later. It is the only way to try and detect the former though. Pedantic, I know.
Just received a warning, admittedly it was a bit of a shit post, so I’m going to apologise for that.
Im not going make any excuses, just step back from this...
Pedantic, I know.
Not really, in this case it's the crux of the matter.
What we know...
Froome has an AAF (that we shouldn't know about).
Froome has won some stuff over the last few years.
The rules say Froome (like any other athlete in his position re an AAF) is allowed to compete (with the caveat that we shouldn't know about the AAF).
EVERYTHING else in this thread is conjecture, opinion or prejudice (a fair bit - too much - of the latter).
Admittedly, the thread title is "Should..." rather than the more straightforward "Can..." but that wouldn't be the STW way...
Personally I'm conflicted. When it comes to pro road cycling, I have equal measures of optimism and cynicism. Reckon I'll just wait and see what comes out in the wash, and enjoy the spectacle in the meantime.
At what point do you start questioning Sky & Froome? When he shoots up with EPO on the side of the road?
How do you make the leap from that to salbutomol? Your "he's currently innocent" comment is spot on.
It’ll all come out in the wash and until then we’re all just arguing on the internet.
True, of course. But this being pro-racing it will take 5 years to get even a vague idea of the truth and we’ll end with a situation like the 00’s where GT winners were so regularly stripped of their titles that nobody has a clue who won what, or when. (And then Shane Sutton will get drunk in a bar and start spilling the beans a la Father Todd Unctious..... )
nb Just to be clear - I’ve no idea if Shane Sutton drinks, or steals priests’ clothing. 😁
“How do you make the leap from that to salbutomol?”
Because Salbutamol can be a PED too....
I don't really think this discussion is going anywhere fast in terms of changing minds, but it would be nice if people could stop it with the borderline obnoxious 'fanboi' and 'Koolaid' ranting. Apart from making you sound like an idiotic American frat boy, it's sneery and patronising and makes the forum feel a hostile, unpleasant place.
I have no problem with people holding a different viewpoint to mine, even if I think they're misguided or simplistic, but why choose to deliberately polarise the conversation by accusing anyone with a less extreme opinion than your own of being some sort of idiotic dope, which is effectively what you're doing.
The reality is that people's opinions on this are subtly nuanced and qualified and mostly sit somewhere on a continuum between 'Froome and Sky are the most evil thing eve'r at one extreme through to them being whiter than white at the other. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you carte blanche to abuse them or to paint them into a set of opinions they don't actually hold.
I get that you may think other posters are wrong or misguided or naive, but how about just saying that rather than resorting to the fanboi blather? The irony is that it makes me think that you're an idiot. And even if you do feel that, say Dave Brailsford is Satan's representative on earth, you're not talking to him on here (I think).
I'm not opposed to robust debate and I'm quite happy to accept that others hold opinions different to mine, but you can still express strongly held views without essentially abusing other posters with endless snide remarks - unless of course you really are an idiotic American frat boy... 😉
you’re not talking to him on here (I think).
There are (to best of my knowledge) two team sky employees on here. Dunno if they have accounts, but they certainly browse...... (neither of them are DB)
For some reason I can't see them being anywhere near this thread.....
Actually metalheart if you won the lottery I’d say you must have cheated because the odds of you winning are so low. So do lottery winners cheat? No, somebody wins because there are so many participants.
You have one unit of alcohol and there is a 0.5% chance you fail a breath test no big deal, except you do this every day and are tested every day of the year. Well you may pass the vast majority of your breath tests, but there is an 84% chance you will not have a license by the end of the year
What if he is guilty of being over the limit, but it is the limit that is flawed?
As per my previous post I received a warning, and it’s clear that I’ve been overly aggressive and come across as a dick. Ironically being as I accused others of ethical issues I let my own drop so I am not going to ‘contribute ‘ further to this (or other ‘doping’ threads).
peace out.
Well you may pass the vast majority of your breath tests, but there is an 84% chance you will not have a license by the end of the year
except I believe you'd be allowed to challenge the result and ask for a retest (blood sample) which would exonerate you - and nobody outside of the local nick would ever know about the breathalyser result.
... which is what ought to happen in the case of a successfully defended AAF.
That said, I (and I think many, many others) mistrust Sky these days - the observations don't match the projected image and their handling of the jiffybag/triamcinolone bulk stocks/dogatemylaptop/testosterone delivery error etc is fishier than ... and THAT it why Froome's under such sceptical/cynical "scrutiny" by the general public. Since "nobody" has any facts to work with, even many months after the AAF, and the relevant authorities are moving at glacial pace, all we're left with is smoke - and of course that might well mean fire
What if he is guilty of being over the limit, but it is the limit that is flawed?
I don't think there have been any credible suggestions that the Salbutamol test is inherently flawed, and there don't seem to be huge numbers of cyclists failing Salbutamol testing, which would also tend to suggest that the limit is not flawed, wouldn't it?
I don’t think there have been any credible suggestions that the Salbutamol test is inherently flawed,
It's been mentioned though.
and there don’t seem to be huge numbers of cyclists failing Salbutamol testing, which would also tend to suggest that the limit is not flawed, wouldn’t it?
Question goes how many had AAF's? We don't know
This could have been Sky Flying close to the sun, we will find out
Though as the last few races have shown we have aero gel on the legs, drafting behind team cars and vans on the TT, hanging onto the side of cars
https://twitter.com/velocast/status/904660253203189760
Can't see if those guys were banned?
What's all that got to do with Chris Froome's AAF?