Forum menu
Either way mike we don’t know enough to equivocally say he’s innocent or guilty. He is, as they say, a person of interest....
Innocent till proven guilty? Yes, because that’s the way justice should work.
Should he ride? No.
Why? I just think the smart move would be not too. Too many very grey areas on this one for me. Past cases, Sky’s history..
And until there’s evidence either exonerating him or damning him I will retain my current level of doubt....
Read this - more BS from Sky. Apparently a secret new drink helped Froom on Finestre.
New???
The research into this secret new weapon came out in 2005 & I know of at least one company who’ve been selling their energy drink in this exact same formula for over a decade!!
F me, I’d have more time for Sky et al if they didn’t try to peddle such crap:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4829/the-new-sis-product-claimed-to-be-behind-froomes-finestre-success
Innocent till proven guilty? Yes, because that’s the way justice should work.
Should he ride? No.
All those with an AAF to be banned then?
F me, I’d have more time for Sky et al if they didn’t try to peddle such crap:
Yeah, just advertising though isn't it, SIS want something in exchange for their cash
Out of season testing seems more rigorous
Many UK athletes have been on national radio to tell everyone how to game the UK anti doping system. In the words of one guy I listening to "You'd have to want to get caught to get caught." and in another interview there were several UK athletes explaining how to make the system more rigorous; extend the 3 strikes and you're out system, change the procedures around the unannounced testing and so on. The general consensus was that it's very easy to get away with doping in athletics
"Yeah, just advertising though isn’t it, SIS want something in exchange for their cash"
It's a complete & utter lie though - easily provable too. I'm sorry Sky built their image on integrity & being clean.....& when you can shoot holes big enough to drive a bus through in their "marginal gains" tactics. Well, they've parted ways with the true meaning of integrity for me!
BWD – MIke – ” I think” ie its an opinion.
Cool, just checking you didn't have anything like actual evidence or owt like that.
You just come across as bitter and twisted with an axe to grind, Sky are a souless mega corp, i get this, Froome on the other hand comes across as a guy with integrity, i just can't see why he would cheat, he has nothing to gain, i 'm willing to give him a chance on this one.
If he is cleared you guys will still think it is a big conspiracy, good luck with that.
No he shouldn't race, it's a farce.
greta article here, that casts various doubts on his story....
Another opinion piece, nothing like jumping on the bandwagon... the plot thickens eh?
Bitter & twisted? As if....
But having been through Festina & Postal.....I call foul on Sky. If one took time to think it through the similarities are stark & obvious,
Remember LA could be charming & what an asshole he turned out to be!
Molgrips – its not just a bit more than normal usage – its a huge amount more by my understanding. its not a few more puffs or a bit slower exctrting it.
I just had a look at my inhaler and the dosage is 100microgrammes per puff.. I can certainly remember instances of taking several 3 puff doses in a few hours (like 2-3) in order to keep symptoms under control, so that's approx. 6-900microgrammes in the space of a couple of hours. With that in mind I can certainly envisage circumstances where I could easily get up to the alleged 1600ish over an 8 hour period.
Now obviously that's a huge approximation, but saying that the dosage is 'massively' above what could be gained by inhaler alone is possibly a bit of a misnomer. Once again, this is just drawing from my own experiences.
Not to mention that obviously Sky and Froome have already explicitly said they didn't exceed the allowed number of inhaler doses during the day..
HIghlandrer - I doubt you get the full 100microgrammes and also it does not get into your bloodstream in the same way.
Nebulisers are 2.5 milligrammes or 5 mg that I see used ( again much will be wasted). tablets are IIRC 5 mg and 10 mg. taken every 4 hours for both dunno the IV dosage
the 1600 figure is the amount in his urine and again IIRC its picogrammes per litre. correct me if I am wrong
Again its only my understanding but the to get to the max permitted level is much higher dosage than the sort of dosage you are talking about.
So ultimately what’s the answer? No TUEs? No inhalers?
HIghlandrer – I doubt you get the full 100microgrammes and also it does not get into your bloodstream in the same way.
Yeah that's what I was thinking, hence the caveats. 🙂
I don't think you can ban the use of these sorts of medications outright as it would effect so many athletes. Regardless of your opinions on how honest athletes are being I think it's well accepted that exercise induced asthma is a very common thing and likely to get moreso going forward as air quality generally decreases.
Add into that, the need to use these kinds of medications for things like certain hayfevers which may only effect someone in certain locations at certain times of year and it's not really practical to say that if you have any need for these medications you shouldn't be competing otherwise you could feasibly end up with entire squads being unable to take part in certain races.
Imagine having 1/3 of the TdF field having to drop out because the route went to a certain area of the S. of france in July and they all came down with untreatable hayfever.!?
It will be a brave ride if he does do it. The crowd will go at him from day 1.
The easy thing to do would be hide.
He's a hero, we should be behind him.
He should most definitely ride.
Perfectly happy for inhalers to be used and a maximum level prescribed that is generous. Over the max level strict liability should apply.
TUEs - must be a neutral doctor.
we should be behind him
The way I ride there is no way I'd be in front of him.
Remember LA could be charming & what an asshole he turned out to be!
did you not read his first book all the signs were there. I got lots of abuse from from others when I questioned the psychopath- all the way from after his first TdF - and I was right. I admit I believed Floyd Landis - but Froome is either a fantastic actor or he's straight. I would veer towards straight.
How’s about the circle jerk fanboys keep to their cleanz thread and leave us dirty haterz in peace.
every time a true believer starts posting he’s not a doper pish on this thread I’m going drop a dopeage turd in the other.
You can’t have it both ways, and you can’t say you’ve not been warned.
🙂
So metal, you dont just want separate threads for separate topics, you want each point of view in a discussion to have its own thread. It's novel, I'll say that for it. But that would make two threads for this one. Then the thread about the race, blimey how many different views there, we'd need a thread for Froome supporters, a thread for Bardet supporters... Are you sure this is practical?
You can’t have it both ways, and you can’t say you’ve not been warned
In fairness, wasn't this supposed to be the Froome/doping discussion thread so the other one was general race chat? So pro and anti Froome comments both appropriate here?
Being honestly, sceptically undecided on the matter I've got to say the 'true believers' are coming off a lot better than the hardened sceptics.
i just can’t see why he would cheat, he has nothing to gain
No, it's difficult to see what motive multi millionaire, world famous winner Froome would have for cheating.
These discussions always go round in the same circles, because none of us actually have inside knowledge about what Froome has or has not done.
The only significant facts at the moment are that Froome has returned a Salbutamol result that is well in excess of the permitted amount, and so far, he has not explained how that happened. We just have to wait and see how the case progresses. I understand the breach of confidentiality in the original leak, but the positive thing about that is that this case is going to be publicly scrutinised, not buried quietly.
I'll be very interested to see what happens with the nay-sayers if Froome is found innocent, will they then accept that verdict ? Or will there still be animosity towards both Sky and Froome ?
I personally have no idea what will happen here, but as with most, i'm very curious to know the answer.
and so far, he has not explained how that happened
Has he not ? Are you sure ? Based upon what ? He may have explained it in the 1500 page report.
The 1500 page report will be the sky juggernaut lawyer overload trying to establish a chink in the defence, anything that will scare the UCI into not being able to ban the doper because they’ve the money and will to pursue them under restraint of trade. That’s how big corporations work. You will bend to their will.
all the lawyers need to do is establish enough doubt that it might not be, you know, the dope with the implied threat ban us and we’ll sue and once again the dopers win.
****ing weasels the lot of them.
I’ll be very interested to see what happens with the nay-sayers if Froome is found innocent, will they then accept that verdict ?
What you needed to ask ? See metal hearts expert assessment of the evidence there.
I’ll be very interested to see what happens with the nay-sayers if Froome is found innocent,
Nuttin' After all, Armstrong never tested positive, etc etc
I’ll be very interested to see what happens with the nay-sayers if Froome is found innocent, will they then accept that verdict ?
Yes, absolutely. I’ve no problem at all with a verdict of not guilty. After all all I seek is a properly run investigation, and whilst that investigation is running against the athlete that they do not enter nor be invited to participate in events run under the UCI banner.
I personally am sick to death of riders/athletes participating in sports whilst under investigation, then have bans that take away thier result and other results going back in time. It nullifies the race/event IMO and seems pointless running the event when athletes are being investigated yet allowed to ride.
All I seek is a clear position on AAF and infringements, it’s a simple ethical position. If an athlete is under investigation, they can not participate in any UCI event until the conclusion of the investigation. The result of the investigation is a secondary issue IMO.
The only significant facts at the moment are that Froome has returned a Salbutamol result that is well in excess of the permitted amount, and so far, he has not explained how that happened.
To that (and Weeksy's point that the result may already have been explained) I'd add significant facts that
1- a process that is supposed to be confidential was leaked by persons unknown and for reasons unknown so that this is taking place in the public eye when it should be being handled (or some would say, should have been handled by now) in private.
2- we have no idea who else is riding under an AAF and for what substances,
If Froome is expected to step aside when he is adamant of his innocence, so should anyone else.
As for the 'every time someone posts a different opinion to me on a thread specifically to discuss people's opinions on this matter I'm going to go and "drop a turd" (stay classy) in the racing thread'..... we get you don't like Sky, but you don't have to break all the other toys as well. Were you an only child by any chance?
If an athlete is under investigation, they can not participate in any UCI event until the conclusion of the investigation.
All of them? Including the ones that are (properly) being kept confidential right now? And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?
And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?
I think you will find that all cyclists are guilty until caught then they are proper guilty .
No, only ones in black / blue / white jerseys (or more recently, Yellow, Red and Pink ones)
That's right h8ters....... all of them. He holds every single one right now
“That’s right h8ters……. all of them. He holds every single one right now”
Oh do grow up!
Has he not ? Are you sure ? Based upon what ? He may have explained it in the 1500 page report.
OK, for the pedantic, there's been no public explanation. The point is that no one knows if he has a plausible excuse or not.
It's striking in that BBC interview linked above, how open and chatty Sky were about their approach and the tactics they used to win the stage. Contrast that with the evasion and dissembling whenever they've been asked difficult questions about the jiffy bag, Salbutamol, etc. It's a carefully done bit of PR.
Indeed.
A reminder for a few who may need it:
“If Froome is expected to step aside when he is adamant of his innocence, so should anyone else.”
But of course! I don’t know why this isn’t done anyway???
But of course! I don’t know why this isn’t done anyway???
How many are racing under AAF's? How many riders have one and are found clean? How many AAF's are more serious?
How many are racing under AAF’s?
Not sure we have any idea at all do we ? It may be 1.... him.... or it may be 200 !
It may be 1in …. him…. or it may be 200 !
"and as they come round for the eighth lap of this circular argument, still no clear leader"
When 'him' = Froome, or someone from Sky / Brailsford - who cares about the rest!
All of them? Including the ones that are (properly) being kept confidential right now? And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?
ALL OF THEM.
Its a simple concept.
Being investigated = no participation.
That particular process shores up any confusion, and also gives WADA or other investigation authorities both the time and due process to come to a conclusion.
This grey area of confidentiality or leaks to the press is a symptom of poor privacy issues, not the actual due process of the investigation.
I would go as far as saying the team of the rider should also be suspended from entering/participating, because it’s also thier responsibility to provide riders/athletes who should be able to enter events ... because they’re not being investigated.
It’s a hard line I take, but our sport has suffered endless issues well documented and it’s become a rolling farce freewheeling itself into oblivion if nothing is done to stop the rot.
"How many are racing under AAF’s? How many riders have one and are found clean? How many AAF’s are more serious?"
All of them!
Zero tolerance.
It's not a hard concept to grasp..
All of them!
Zero tolerance.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp..
It's not a black and white concept though, Drug Testing has rules and limits, these things are in the hard to measure/factor/analyse grey areas which is why they are in a separate section of the drug testing world.
OK, for the pedantic, there’s been no public explanation. The point is that no one knows if he has a plausible excuse or not.
And we don't need to no either. Providing he can explain the adverse results to the relevant authorities we should never have known anything. The general publics involvemnt should only happen if he can't and recieves a ban/sanction.