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.

http://amp.timeinc.net/cyclingweekly/news/racing/lotto-soudal-investigation-uci-using-special-aerodynamic-gel-criterium-du-dauphine-382396?source=dam

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.

metalheart – don’t be so thin skinned. How was he to know you had a pacemaker – I didn’t

teej, I’m not (and I don’t, what a rascal, eh? That was my first genuine bit of trolling on this thread). But, ethics, who needs em, not these boys 🤣

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?