Froome doping or not?

okgo

Rick Chasey wrote:

okgo wrote:

They already have, and did with Wiggins. That TUE **** was cheating, anyone with a brain can see that.

So that'll be why it didn't contravene any anti doping rulez.

Rulez are rulez. He didn't break 'em, suck it up.

The rules mean shit in the cloudy murky world of anti doping.

Go watch Icarus then come back to me with your rules crap.

rick_chasey

okgo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

okgo wrote:

They already have, and did with Wiggins. That TUE **** was cheating, anyone with a brain can see that.

So that'll be why it didn't contravene any anti doping rulez.

Rulez are rulez. He didn't break 'em, suck it up.

The rules mean shoot in the cloudy murky world of anti doping.

Go watch Icarus then come back to me with your rules crap.

Don't think comparing a prescribed TUE and the Russian doping system is really constructive.

azzurri78

Milemuncher1 wrote:

There's no way Sky would be stupid enough to risk doping. There are a lot of people who would love to stick both boots into them, if they did. Their success is due to having the team set up and financial clout, to attract a team of riders, pretty much any of who could take the GC, if they were allowed to, or an incident with Froome, discounted him. There aren't any other teams who contest the TdF at present, with the number of riders, at the standard of Sky's.

#marginalgains :roll:

azzurri78

Rick Chasey wrote:

okgo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

okgo wrote:

They already have, and did with Wiggins. That TUE **** was cheating, anyone with a brain can see that.

So that'll be why it didn't contravene any anti doping rulez.

Rulez are rulez. He didn't break 'em, suck it up.

The rules mean shoot in the cloudy murky world of anti doping.

Go watch Icarus then come back to me with your rules crap.

Don't think comparing a prescribed TUE and the Russian doping system is really constructive.

Nothing suspicious in those TUE's at all.

bigmat

The TUEs are dodgy. Marginal gains pushed a bit too far. But this was 5/6 years ago. The sport has cleaned up a lot since then. Back then, what Sky were doing was still small-time stuff, probably within the rules and not a big deal. I still suspect the "package" contained kenalog which was then taken technically within competition, without a TUE, therefore a technical breach of the rules, hence Sky's very awkward response to all of this. Probably good for a 6 month ban for Wiggo (similar level to S Yates) but they could potentially pop him for more and risk the 2012 Tour, Olympics etc etc. All a bit harsh in my opinion, but they pushed the boundaries and got caught out.

This is all so far removed from what USPS, TMobile etc etc were doing its a joke though.

rick_chasey

azzurri78 wrote:

Nothing suspicious in those TUE's at all.

Fairly big difference between being within the rules and not though.

Russians just swap urine around; definitely illegal. That's why you're not seeing them at the athletics in london this week.

TUE? Well, we know about it, and he's not being prosecuted 'cos it's within the rules.

whatleytom

If you watch Icarus though, the scientists essentially laugh in the face of the anti doping tests. Its clear if you want to know how to get round the tests, that its easily done. The fact was that the Russians wanted to dope all the way through the games, and so needed to have urine samples swapped. Seemed clear to me this wouldn't have been necessary otherwise, as the biological passport and tests can be completely gamed.

So imo, I would have to assume that somebody like Sky with their budget, is probably up to no good, especially given they are willing to pretty flagrantly abuse the TUE system. To which end I would have to assume that most of the peleton probably is as well, but with the bigger budget, Sky are likely to be getting the best out of it.

I'm not going to stop watching cycling as a result, but I'd like to think I'm not being completely naive either.

bigmat

whatleytom wrote:

If you watch Icarus though, the scientists essentially laugh in the face of the anti doping tests. Its clear if you want to know how to get round the tests, that its easily done. The fact was that the Russians wanted to dope all the way through the games, and so needed to have urine samples swapped. Seemed clear to me this wouldn't have been necessary otherwise, as the biological passport and tests can be completely gamed.

So imo, I would have to assume that somebody like Sky with their budget, is probably up to no good, especially given they are willing to pretty flagrantly abuse the TUE system. To which end I would have to assume that most of the peloton probably is as well, but with the bigger budget, Sky are likely to be getting the best out of it.

I'm not going to stop watching cycling as a result, but I'd like to think I'm not being completely naive either.

Pretty clear that the cheats will always find a way to beat the testers, but I don't equate Sky's "abuse" of the TUE system with full on doping programmes. I think they pushed the boundaries of what they considered to be within the rules of the sport, and back in 2011/12 what they were doing with TUEs would not have been newsworthy at all. I'm not saying they aren't cheating on a grand scale (and the mystery batch of testosterone is very suspicious), but I'll suspend my cynicism for the time being.

itboffin

okgo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

okgo wrote:

They already have, and did with Wiggins. That TUE **** was cheating, anyone with a brain can see that.

So that'll be why it didn't contravene any anti doping rulez.

Rulez are rulez. He didn't break 'em, suck it up.

The rules mean shoot in the cloudy murky world of anti doping.

Go watch Icarus then come back to me with your rules crap.

Good documentary that, i watched it today on the flight home. I must admit it was no surprise as im sure it wasnt to most in the industry.

tangled_metal

Quick question, if teams work just within the rules then they change to be stricter, do we apply the new rules retrospectively?

If yes then Sky may end up on the wrong side and yes there is a memorial to a doper in the mountain side.

If you believe the rules, such as they are, should be followed and enforced at the time they were played. By this I mean rules followed now, new rules get followed as they come in but you don't apply them to past regimes. If you believe in this then Sky aren't cheating (not been caught so innocent I until proven guilty), but Tommy Simpson was also no cheat according to the rules of the day.

I'm not sure which you think applies or even if they do, but I don't agree with retrospective morality. Chauvinism was acceptable towards the "little woman at home" but try it online now in mixed fora you may very much get flamed for it. Not acceptable now but generally accepted once. Looking back at those times with modern eyes isn't realistic.

So if you don't mind isn't it better to support anti doping regimes by leaving them to do their job? Speculation and attempts by amateurs on public fora to do their work based on conjecture without evidence. Well does that system do any good? Have these keyboard warriors proven anything at all?

If you have.evidence Froome is doing under the existing rules take it to anti doping authorities. It's their job to investigate and catch cheats according to the rules. If not STFU! You're a bunch of idiots too interested in causing damage than anything positive. Here's an out there idea, let's enjoy the sport of cycling! How can you enjoy treatment if sky and Froome at times on the tour? That's where speculation puts the sport. A nasty way to go at times.

cougie

If sky were cheating they would have had more incidents by now. Look at USPS and how many of Lance's team got busted over the years.

Look at team GB too. If they were cheating someone would have slipped up.

milemuncher1

cougie wrote:

If sky were cheating they would have had more incidents by now. Look at USPS and how many of Lance's team got busted over the years.

Look at team GB too. If they were cheating someone would have slipped up.

Or someone would have grassed them up by now.

tangled_metal

Jeeez! Stop defending sky, team gb and Froome. They've got no case to answer. Defending them is probably making it worse. Isn't it better to let the idiots rant off among themselves until they all.start sounding like conspiracy nutters with tin hats?

tgotb

Tangled Metal wrote:

Tommy Simpson was also no cheat according to the rules of the day.

Not so - PEDs (including amphetamines) were made illegal in 1965, and drug testing was in place at the 1966 Tour. Simpson died (with amphetamines in his system) in 1967.

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

Jeeez! Stop defending sky, team gb and Froome. They've got no case to answer. Defending them is probably making it worse. Isn't it better to let the idiots rant off among themselves until they all.start sounding like conspiracy nutters with tin hats?

It's more you need better ammo than TUE's and hayfever drugs.

Get some proper dirt on proper performance enhancers and then i'll listen.

It's almost like you guys don't remember the bad old days with phone taps, police raids, riders mysteriously ill.

If the rozzers aren't involved, it's not that big.

okgo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Jeeez! Stop defending sky, team gb and Froome. They've got no case to answer. Defending them is probably making it worse. Isn't it better to let the idiots rant off among themselves until they all.start sounding like conspiracy nutters with tin hats?

It's more you need better ammo than TUE's and hayfever drugs.

Get some proper dirt on proper performance enhancers and then i'll listen.

It's almost like you guys don't remember the bad old days with phone taps, police raids, riders mysteriously ill.

If the rozzers aren't involved, it's not that big.

Yes, losing weight while retaining your power to the extent that you can climb with the worlds best despite being 6,3 and a former track rider is clearly the product of something that is NOT a serious performance enhancer.

I mean, you do come out with pure dross on a daily basis, but this is good, even for you.

rick_chasey

okgo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Jeeez! Stop defending sky, team gb and Froome. They've got no case to answer. Defending them is probably making it worse. Isn't it better to let the idiots rant off among themselves until they all.start sounding like conspiracy nutters with tin hats?

It's more you need better ammo than TUE's and hayfever drugs.

Get some proper dirt on proper performance enhancers and then i'll listen.

It's almost like you guys don't remember the bad old days with phone taps, police raids, riders mysteriously ill.

If the rozzers aren't involved, it's not that big.

Yes, losing weight while retaining your power to the extent that you can climb with the worlds best despite being 6,3 and a former track rider is clearly the product of something that is NOT a serious performance enhancer.

I mean, you do come out with pure dross on a daily basis, but this is good, even for you.

Fairly sure he lost all that weight before he started using that particular TUE?

He wasn't on it in 2009, so that transformation had already happened.

tangled_metal

Interesting speculations. Evidence? Is there any actual evidence? You need evidence to for anything to be done by anti doping. If you've got it then hand it over and we'll see what happens.

If you're right then I want him out of the sport too. It needs due process though. What annoys me is the condemnation of people with no knowledge or evidence to support their view. Cast aspersions and face no consequences. Put your reputation on the line and go to authorities. What reputation, what knowledge, what experience and what evidence? No evidence then put your tin hat down and let the guy ride.

milemuncher1

Rick Chasey wrote:

okgo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Jeeez! Stop defending sky, team gb and Froome. They've got no case to answer. Defending them is probably making it worse. Isn't it better to let the idiots rant off among themselves until they all.start sounding like conspiracy nutters with tin hats?

It's more you need better ammo than TUE's and hayfever drugs.

Get some proper dirt on proper performance enhancers and then i'll listen.

It's almost like you guys don't remember the bad old days with phone taps, police raids, riders mysteriously ill.

If the rozzers aren't involved, it's not that big.

Yes, losing weight while retaining your power to the extent that you can climb with the worlds best despite being 6,3 and a former track rider is clearly the product of something that is NOT a serious performance enhancer.

I mean, you do come out with pure dross on a daily basis, but this is good, even for you.

Fairly sure he lost all that weight before he started using that particular TUE?

He wasn't on it in 2009, so that transformation had already happened.

He became part of a very efficient training program, based on science. Science said if you drop your weight significantly you're Power to weight ratio increases, which makes you go faster, for no increase in power. So he lost weight, improved his technique to increase his power, and voila, 4 Tour de France GCs.

fenix

Remind me how tall Big Mig was again ? He did all right in the mountains too.

okgo

Another doper?

fenix

Well he was before the days of EPO and this wondrous weight dropping drug.....

tangled_metal

Does that not mean every yellow jersey is a doper because they have to do well in the event. Do.better than the others you're a doper.

Are there any clean cyclists in the pro peloton? To hear some you'd think not.

cruff

Fenix wrote:

Well he was before the days of EPO and this wondrous weight dropping drug.....

Not sure if serious? EPO was being abused almost as soon as it was created - the Dutchies and Belgians were dropping like flies in the late eighties. The chances Big Mig weren't on the juice are, sadly, infinitesimally small

fenix

I did think EPO was after the days of Big Mig - I might be mistaken though.
Never hear rumours about him ? It'd be a shame if he was on the juice.

azzurri78

Big Mig and the Banesto team were clients of Conconi. Evidence of payments to Conconi but no proof of what the payments were for.

pblakeney

I thought it was accepted that Mig was on the juice.

milemuncher1

PBlakeney wrote:

I thought it was accepted that Mig was on the juice.

It was also well known he had gigantic lungs, and a VO2 max that was scarcely believable.