Forum menu
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.