Jump to content
pieman

Froomey banned from tour (and then not banned)

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Rimmer said:

I was on the Trams for a slipped disc a couple of years ago and I could barely walk for the Hendrix that was playing in my head and the purple elephants that were dancing around me in the room.

How anyone could race a bike on that stuff has me stuffed .....

Explains Vocklers facial expressions then.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Here's what WADA expert says:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada

 

But really it doesn't matter whether ergogencity has been proven. It's prohibited above a given dosage.

Like caffeine was, then wasn't? If WADA is going to ban things it needs to be credible - this is probably a separate argument. 

Anyway, that's funny; that is the link I also provided (see above) and the article questions whether there is any real performance enhancement and the research only suggests it may have a steroidal effect if taken in large enough doses... which is unproven, and in Froome's case it was not a large excess and only once. 

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this. I think there's a certain amount of group think going on here and somehow based on the sheerest of anomalies he's now up there with the greatest systematic doper of all times. On the evidence so far I think not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slowman said:

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this.

I think a lot of the issue is the fact that it has taken so long to sort out after remaining hidden for so long. As soon as it was likely to affect him starting a race, it was resolved. And other riders have been banned for the same thing, but Froome gets off. Likely if the leak hadn't made the press, this would never have been known to the public, which makes people think how often has this happened?

This are the things that make it look "Armstrongish".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From nothing particularly outstanding to the greatest of his generation by some margin.  The man with a team of domestiques that appear to be superior to most of the GC contenders.  Regular allegations met with claims of transparency that never happen.

Absolutely right, I can't see why anyone would draw parallels.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slowman said:

Like caffeine was, then wasn't? If WADA is going to ban things it needs to be credible - this is probably a separate argument. 

Anyway, that's funny; that is the link I also provided (see above) and the article questions whether there is any real performance enhancement and the research only suggests it may have a steroidal effect if taken in large enough doses... which is unproven, and in Froome's case it was not a large excess and only once. 

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this. I think there's a certain amount of group think going on here and somehow based on the sheerest of anomalies he's now up there with the greatest systematic doper of all times. On the evidence so far I think not.

You can say you can't compare one "anomaly" with Froome to the "greatest systematic doper of all time" - thing is at the time Lance "never tested positive".

It's actually exactly the same argument that surrounded Lance, suspicion, the odd anomaly, but no proof.

Edited by dazaau
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I think a lot of the issue is the fact that it has taken so long to sort out after remaining hidden for so long. As soon as it was likely to affect him starting a race, it was resolved. And other riders have been banned for the same thing, but Froome gets off. Likely if the leak hadn't made the press, this would never have been known to the public, which makes people think how often has this happened?

This are the things that make it look "Armstrongish".

 

1 hour ago, dazaau said:

You can say you can't compare one "anomaly" with Froome to the "greatest systematic doper of all time" - thing is at the time Lance "never tested positive".

It's actually exactly the same argument that surrounded Lance, suspicion, the odd anomaly, but no proof.

I agree this is a worrying development but let's not forget during Lance's time there was no bio passport or random out of competition testing though as he demonstrated adverse test results can be made to not exist. Is it possible Sky could have rebuilt a network of secrecy and corrupt UCI officials in such a short period of time? Does this also mean other teams are also involved in keeping this all secret? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Sky performed so poorly when asked to produce records etc at the recent inquiry, yet claim that their success lies in their meticulous preparation belies belief. If they were so meticulous, they'd have every record of every supplement that every rider took, to see what helped and what didn't.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Slowman said:

Like caffeine was, then wasn't? If WADA is going to ban things it needs to be credible - this is probably a separate argument. 

Anyway, that's funny; that is the link I also provided (see above) and the article questions whether there is any real performance enhancement and the research only suggests it may have a steroidal effect if taken in large enough doses... which is unproven, and in Froome's case it was not a large excess and only once. 

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this. I think there's a certain amount of group think going on here and somehow based on the sheerest of anomalies he's now up there with the greatest systematic doper of all times. On the evidence so far I think not.

Don't conflate matters of doping with matters of performance enhancement. Sleeping, eating and training are performance enhancing too. Doping substances and ergogenic substances are overlapping sets but they are not completely overlapping. There are many prohibited substances with limited ergogenic properties and there are ergogenic substances that are not doping.

Re-read the WADA code to remind yourself what is and is not doping and why things are included on the prohibited list, or in the case of specified substances have limits on their use.

Consider that one of Sky's defences was that the sample was impacted by him having a chest infection on that day. Amazing that you can have a chest infection while also distancing and beating all your GC rivals in a grand tour stage. That's a heck of an illness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The fact that Sky performed so poorly when asked to produce records etc at the recent inquiry, yet claim that their success lies in their meticulous preparation belies belief. If they were so meticulous, they'd have every record of every supplement that every rider took, to see what helped and what didn't.

marginal gains isn't it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stikman said:

From nothing particularly outstanding to the greatest of his generation by some margin.  The man with a team of domestiques that appear to be superior to most of the GC contenders.  Regular allegations met with claims of transparency that never happen.

Absolutely right, I can't see why anyone would draw parallels.

That is exactly correct. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stikman said:

From nothing particularly outstanding to the greatest of his generation by some margin.  The man with a team of domestiques that appear to be superior to most of the GC contenders.  Regular allegations met with claims of transparency that never happen.

Absolutely right, I can't see why anyone would draw parallels.

Yeah how would anyone draw that conclusion - the guy happened to have been surrounded by the best selection of super domestiques - riding the legs of everyone else in the final week of the tour 🙄 but I'm not English so I must be biased 😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Consider that one of Sky's defences was that the sample was impacted by him having a chest infection on that day. Amazing that you can have a chest infection while also distancing and beating all your GC rivals in a grand tour stage. That's a heck of an illness.

I'm currently sitting in a hotel room with a common chest infection. The chance of me making it to the top of the Zugspitze in a gondola today is about the same as me winning today's Tour stage. Giving myself a slightly better chance of making it into town for a gelati for lunch.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let's have a trash pop poll on which is more probable

A)Froome being clean

B)Kim Jong in giving up nuclear weapons

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le

22 hours ago, Ruley said:

Ok let's have a trash pop poll on which is more probable

A)Froome being clean

B)Kim Jong in giving up nuclear weapons

Let me google this froome guy and get back to you with my response 

3F6F5F4C-83AB-4EE7-8A6D-62BA493E62B7.jpeg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😂😂😂😂😂

Business as usual 😎🤘😂😂

 

Awesome 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/07/2018 at 11:11 AM, Alex Simmons said:

Don't conflate matters of doping with matters of performance enhancement. Sleeping, eating and training are performance enhancing too. Doping substances and ergogenic substances are overlapping sets but they are not completely overlapping. There are many prohibited substances with limited ergogenic properties and there are ergogenic substances that are not doping.

Re-read the WADA code to remind yourself what is and is not doping and why things are included on the prohibited list, or in the case of specified substances have limits on their use.

Consider that one of Sky's defences was that the sample was impacted by him having a chest infection on that day. Amazing that you can have a chest infection while also distancing and beating all your GC rivals in a grand tour stage. That's a heck of an illness.

Yes I reread it, but you have to remember if you are going to take a black letter approach, it is more than just the code. It's the CAS and procedures too. Which do allow TUEs for salbutimol. My guess is this substance in a couple of years will be taken off the list like caffeine was. There has been no evidence to show high doses of it have a steroid effect it is just thought it might.

I'm not unsympathetic to these suspicions about Froome but tying to nail him on a salbutimol infraction, which by the way his lawyers seem to have successfully defended, is really only going to be a misdemeanor when it sounds like something much bigger is going on. 

On 05/07/2018 at 10:32 PM, Ruley said:

Ok let's have a trash pop poll on which is more probable

A)Froome being clean

B)Kim Jong in giving up nuclear weapons

C) Trump ever declaring a conflict of interest

On 09/07/2018 at 10:02 AM, Roy said:

Good article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UCI had already spent US$ 250,000 in legal fees just in preliminaries on the Froome case. Neither they nor WADA could afford to keep pursuing the case. They capitulated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

UCI had already spent US$ 250,000 in legal fees just in preliminaries on the Froome case. Neither they nor WADA could afford to keep pursuing the case. They capitulated accordingly.

How much did they spend on Lance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

How much did they spend on Lance

They didn't. USADA did. 

 

8 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

UCI had already spent US$ 250,000 in legal fees just in preliminaries on the Froome case. Neither they nor WADA could afford to keep pursuing the case. They capitulated accordingly.

Yes unfortunately until we have all free legal services (utopia) those with the biggest bank roll can win in certain situations. Or maybe they are saving their resources for a bigger battle in order to win the war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

How much did they spend on Lance

The UCI (or certain individuals) made money from Lance. It was USADA who drained their bank account to fight the case.

Not sure what WADA's legal costs were but I expect something similar. It represents ~1% of each of their annual budgets. Team Sky's annual budget is more than the UCI and WADA.

Froome is personally more profitable than the ASO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×