Forum menu
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?