Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
As i said before, if you truly believe Froome is a doper then stop watching the sport because everyone else would be a doper. Nibali at the Tour...Wiggins at the Tour...Evans....everyone.
Ummm. No. If Froome is a doper, it implies absolutely nothing for Nibali, Wiggins or Evans.
If Evans was found to have doped, I think I'd lose my last shred of faith in the sport, however.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
you ve not met Rodrego then RR?
Funnily enough, memories come flooding back now0 -
So it has apparently reached the stage where Froome had an infection at the end of the Tour but wouldn't get a TUE for antibiotics due to the fuss it would cause. If that's the case I'd say things have gone too far!0
-
So it has apparently reached the stage where Froome had an infection at the end of the Tour but wouldn't get a TUE for antibiotics due to the fuss it would cause. If that's the case I'd say things have gone too far!
I'd say when people starting physically abusing him and his team mates it had already crossed the line of too far.0 -
So it has apparently reached the stage where Froome had an infection at the end of the Tour but wouldn't get a TUE for antibiotics due to the fuss it would cause. If that's the case I'd say things have gone too far!
I don't think you should be allowed to race if you need a tue to get round. If your that sick or injured you shouldn't be in the race, the fact that he still won without a TUE shows he wasn't that bad IMO0 -
So it has apparently reached the stage where Froome had an infection at the end of the Tour but wouldn't get a TUE for antibiotics due to the fuss it would cause. If that's the case I'd say things have gone too far!
I don't think you should be allowed to race if you need a tue to get round. If your that sick or injured you shouldn't be in the race, the fact that he still won without a TUE shows he wasn't that bad IMO
Well the problem is that when you've stripped all your fat and trained the hell out of yourself, your immune system is more susceptible to infection. What "wasn't that bad" can become far worse if not treated. So if you're prepared to make riders leave the race when they could go on but with a risk of something more serious, then it's fine to prevent TUEs in-race. You'll have to convince riders and DSs that they shouldn't be riding when they've got a bit of a cold though.
Meanwhile, Froome did take antibiotics (didn't need a TUE, they're not performance enhancing or on the banned list), which shows that he was ill enough to need treatment. What he didn't take was a steroid that would have helped him deal with the phlegm and chest irritation, which is a serious problem for asthmatics. This treatment, incidentally, is pretty much proven not to be performance enhancing, but mass hysteria surrounding TUEs and asthma treatments mean it was too sensitive to take.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Exactly. Riders will always ride on until they can ride on no more. Let's remember that Basso wanted to carry on and he had f-ing cancer.
Well the problem is that when you've stripped all your fat and trained the hell out of yourself, your immune system is more susceptible to infection. What "wasn't that bad" can become far worse if not treated. So if you're prepared to make riders leave the race when they could go on but with a risk of something more serious, then it's fine to prevent TUEs in-race.
TUEs are there because WADA are pragmatists and not idealists and they recognise that sportsmen will always try to play. They will hide their injuries and illnesses from coaches and doctors if necessary. TUEs allow them to be honest and get medical attention and often fix the problem quite easily. (And that's before we start on TUEs for permanent problems like Novo Nordisk's diabetes and half the Paralympics).
Unfortunately any mention of anything medical in cycling attracts hysteria these days.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Unfortunately any mention of anything medical in cycling attracts hysteria these days.
In fairness, that's not without good reason.
For 15 years, a team doctor's main role was to dope their riders up.0 -
That's not an excuse. It's gone way too far. The fuss over Froome's inhaler was madness and showed how much perspective has been lost.
Unfortunately any mention of anything medical in cycling attracts hysteria these days.
In fairness, that's not without good reason.
For 15 years, a team doctor's main role was to dope their riders up.Twitter: @RichN950 -
That's not an excuse. It's gone way too far. The fuss over Froome's inhaler was madness and showed how much perspective has been lost.
Unfortunately any mention of anything medical in cycling attracts hysteria these days.
In fairness, that's not without good reason.
For 15 years, a team doctor's main role was to dope their riders up.
Wasn't Petacchi done for an asthma drug?
That and there has been a lot of scepticism for a long time about how authentic the rates of asthma in the pro peloton?
And he did it in the finale.
Sure, the outcry was for something that was ultimately fine and legal, but it's not an unexpected or that unreasonable response given the historical context of cycling & doping, and specifically with asthma drugs.0 -
Wasn't Petacchi done for an asthma drug? Yes he took too much of it. Just like Ulissi did. However, millions of people also use inhalers and are not dopers.
That and there has been a lot of scepticism for a long time about how authentic the rates of asthma in the pro peloton? Is it really so surprising that EIA, which is caused by the inflamation of the lungs due to prolonged and vigourous exercise, is far more common in people who breathe heavily for several hours a day, every day. It's as clear a link as smoking and lung cancer
And he did it in the finale. So when exertion on the lungs is at its maximum and the chance of an asthma attack is highest then. It would be a lousy time to take that drug as a PED and useless in that quantity.
Sure, the outcry was for something that was ultimately fine and legal, but it's not an unexpected or that unreasonable response given the historical context of cycling & doping, and specifically with asthma drugs.
'Historical context', the justification of every kind of prejudice
Asthma is common, and elite endurance athletes inflame their lungs a lot. This is a simple explanation. And one that would seem logical to a sane man who knows people who have a quite toot on their inhaler before doing sport. However, some such as you, are unwilling to consider at the bleeding obvious if they can just scream 'Drrruuuugggss!!!"
Here's an example of a sensible reaction to the sight of an inhaler:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1230404/David-Beckhams-biggest-secret-revealed-star-admits-Asthma.html
(No grand conspiracy because hadn't publicly mentioned it before. Just 'oh look, he's got asthma' and no more).
Cycling is in a 'fool's gold' stage, where the demand for doping conspiracies considerably outweighs supply. So every nugget is claimed as scandal, and by doing so the few actual problems may well go unnoticed.Twitter: @RichN950 -
there was no scandal because, even with his magic inhaler, Becks still couldn't beat his man
0 -
This isn't going to go away
If he has done nothing, then stop pandering to the mob. This lab test business. If the choice of magazine is as per what I've been told, then its just going to inflame things as a platform for a puff piece - and its not going to be a peer-reviewed, scientific paper. Now things are such that it doesn't really matter what the article says, what it contains, it will be rubbished immediately by many.
However, he might be well-advised not to repeat an attempt to ban a journalist from the daily huddle with the journos at the Tour because he doesnt like something his paper's Chief Sports Editor tweeted. That kind of thing isn't the best play.0 -
Your average cycling print hack has a phenomenal sense of entitlement though. They could all do with a spell covering other major sports. Froome is doing them a favour - it's not a right.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19734985#p19734985]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:However, he might be well-advised not to repeat an attempt to ban a journalist from the daily huddle with the journos at the Tour because he doesnt like something his paper's Chief Sports Editor tweeted. That kind of thing isn't the best play.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Your average cycling print hack has a phenomenal sense of entitlement though. They could all do with a spell covering other major sports. Froome is doing them a favour - it's not a right.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19734985#p19734985]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:However, he might be well-advised not to repeat an attempt to ban a journalist from the daily huddle with the journos at the Tour because he doesnt like something his paper's Chief Sports Editor tweeted. That kind of thing isn't the best play.
Um no. Those media huddles were set up by his employer and his team's management. Those people who pay his salary. It is not for him to try to dictate through his caprice which journos he suddenly decides should be banned halfway through the Tour. Brailsford and Sky had to step in and tell him to cut it out.
Remember the last time a Tour winner banned journos he didnt care for, from media sessions and interviews? Not really a great strategy0 -
Rubbish. It's up to him and him alone who he speaks to. He's not an elected official. If someone is rude to me there's no way I'm going to help them regardless of what my employer says. Sky should back Froome's wishes. And a Sky should have realised that providing easy access unconditional makes them an easy target.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735038#p19735038]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:
Your average cycling print hack has a phenomenal sense of entitlement though. They could all do with a spell covering other major sports. Froome is doing them a favour - it's not a right.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19734985#p19734985]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:However, he might be well-advised not to repeat an attempt to ban a journalist from the daily huddle with the journos at the Tour because he doesnt like something his paper's Chief Sports Editor tweeted. That kind of thing isn't the best play.
Um no. Those media huddles were set up by his employer and his team's management. Those people who pay his salary. It is not for him to try to dictate through his caprice which journos he suddenly decides should be banned halfway through the Tour. Brailsford and Sky had to step in and tell him to cut it out.
Remember the last time a Tour winner banned journos he didnt care for, from media sessions and interviews? Not really a great strategy
Given that most cycling journalists wet themselves like a ten year old Directioneer every time Peter Sagan wheels out his ten word vocabulary, what do these huddles even achieve?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rich, it doesnt really matter what you think in terms of ripples from it
The fact is that it went down like a lead balloon, and deepened unease in some quarters.
You can proclaim till you're blue in the fact that you think one way about things.
But Froome and Sky's relationship with the media is bad. There's no other word for it. Froome is teetering on being virtually uncontrollable on the media front. And if you dont think that has any impact on what happens on the road in France in Jul, I'm sorry but you're being willfully blind.0 -
Maybe Froome's taking it into his own hands because Brailsford is so crap at it.[url=http:/www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735050#p19735050]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Rich, it doesnt really matter what you think in terms of ripples from it
The fact is that it went down like a lead balloon, and deepened unease in some quarters.
You can proclaim till you're blue in the fact that you think one way about things.
But Froome and Sky's relationship with the media is bad. There's no other word for it. Froome is teetering on being virtually uncontrollable on the media front. And if you dont think that has any impact on what happens on the road in France in Jul, I'm sorry but you're being willfully blind.
And I expect your impression of the realtionship between Fromme and media comes directly from those same entitled print journos, upset he doesn't attend to their every whim. If Froome is refusing to speak to some jojrnalists then good for him. They treat him like crap when he does talk to them anyway.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Maybe Froome's taking it into his own hands because Brailsford is so crap at it.[url=http:/www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735050#p19735050]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Rich, it doesnt really matter what you think in terms of ripples from it
The fact is that it went down like a lead balloon, and deepened unease in some quarters.
You can proclaim till you're blue in the fact that you think one way about things.
But Froome and Sky's relationship with the media is bad. There's no other word for it. Froome is teetering on being virtually uncontrollable on the media front. And if you dont think that has any impact on what happens on the road in France in Jul, I'm sorry but you're being willfully blind.
And I expect your impression of the realtionship between Fromme and media comes directly from those same entitled print journos, upset he doesn't attend to their every whim. If Froome is refusing to speak to some jojrnalists then good for him. They treat him like crap when he does talk to them anyway.
In truth, you have no idea who I speak with. But its easy to shoot the messenger because you dont like the message, I guess.
For goodness sake, Rich, this is emotional baloney. its all getting a bit silly now. Believe what you want to believe, justify things however you choose to, its really no skin off my nose.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735050#p19735050]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Rich, it doesnt really matter what you think in terms of ripples from it
The fact is that it went down like a lead balloon, and deepened unease in some quarters.
You can proclaim till you're blue in the fact that you think one way about things.
But Froome and Sky's relationship with the media is bad. There's no other word for it. Froome is teetering on being virtually uncontrollable on the media front. And if you dont think that has any impact on what happens on the road in France in Jul, I'm sorry but you're being willfully blind.
Surely it has to work both ways, though. If somebody consistently makes snide insinuations about you, takes into account every piece of hearsay about you without reporting the other side and seems intent on using your good work to further an agenda that they are not prepared to be dissuaded from, why would you continue to fuel that fire?
maybe he could just do a Merckx and learn the phrase "I am completely indifferent" in 10 languages."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735068#p19735068]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735050#p19735050]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Rich, it doesnt really matter what you think in terms of ripples from it
The fact is that it went down like a lead balloon, and deepened unease in some quarters.
You can proclaim till you're blue in the fact that you think one way about things.
But Froome and Sky's relationship with the media is bad. There's no other word for it. Froome is teetering on being virtually uncontrollable on the media front. And if you dont think that has any impact on what happens on the road in France in Jul, I'm sorry but you're being willfully blind.
Surely it has to work both ways, though. If somebody consistently makes snide insinuations about you, takes into account every piece of hearsay about you without reporting the other side and seems intent on using your good work to further an agenda that they are not prepared to be dissuaded from, why would you continue to fuel that fire?
maybe he could just do a Merckx and learn the phrase "I am completely indifferent" in 10 languages.
Maybe he should, Goat, maybe he should. Hell, it works for many of his rivals.0 -
So it has apparently reached the stage where Froome had an infection at the end of the Tour but wouldn't get a TUE for antibiotics due to the fuss it would cause. If that's the case I'd say things have gone too far!
I don't think you should be allowed to race if you need a tue to get round. If your that sick or injured you shouldn't be in the race, the fact that he still won without a TUE shows he wasn't that bad IMO
How would this rule apply to Team Novo Nordisk?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
So it has apparently reached the stage where Froome had an infection at the end of the Tour but wouldn't get a TUE for antibiotics due to the fuss it would cause. If that's the case I'd say things have gone too far!
I don't think you should be allowed to race if you need a tue to get round. If your that sick or injured you shouldn't be in the race, the fact that he still won without a TUE shows he wasn't that bad IMO
How would this rule apply to Team Novo Nordisk?
Under the above rule it would completely rule them out.
From USADA and I presume WADA: "Athletes diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes are required to submit a TUE for use of insulin."0 -
Rich and RR2 both have a fair point IMO, Froome's in a lose-lose position isn't he - if he keeps talking to every journo, he's going to have to put up with constant doping questions, if he tries to avoid the most annoying ones they're all going to say he's trying to hide something.
It's easy to see why Froome doesn't want to speak to certain people though.0 -
If someone is rude to me there's no way I'm going to help them regardless of what my employer says.
I've had several clients be extremely rude to me before. We're still working with them - that's life. You just have to be professional and get on with it.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735066#p19735066]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:
Maybe Froome's taking it into his own hands because Brailsford is so crap at it.[url=http:/www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735050#p19735050]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Rich, it doesnt really matter what you think in terms of ripples from it
The fact is that it went down like a lead balloon, and deepened unease in some quarters.
You can proclaim till you're blue in the fact that you think one way about things.
But Froome and Sky's relationship with the media is bad. There's no other word for it. Froome is teetering on being virtually uncontrollable on the media front. And if you dont think that has any impact on what happens on the road in France in Jul, I'm sorry but you're being willfully blind.
And I expect your impression of the realtionship between Fromme and media comes directly from those same entitled print journos, upset he doesn't attend to their every whim. If Froome is refusing to speak to some jojrnalists then good for him. They treat him like crap when he does talk to them anyway.
In truth, you have no idea who I speak with. But its easy to shoot the messenger because you dont like the message, I guess.
For goodness sake, Rich, this is emotional baloney. its all getting a bit silly now. Believe what you want to believe, justify things however you choose to, its really no skin off my nose.
Would you have minded so much if the journo was Snape? We may as well pick on him as much as anyone...This is a guy that will retweet Digger and Ross Tucker like they re some sort of warrior for truth then rubbish everything that Sky or Froome says without reading it. How can you deal with a guy like that?
One of the problems cycling has it that most of it's coverage is written by low quality hacks who can't get a job on a sports desk (those that ARE on sports desk uniformly don't write nonsense articles). One of the reasons is that it is really very easy to write a hate piece full of click bait (if you ve never done this, pick any topic and try it) but it is a lot harder to write a nuanced piece about the reality of the situation balancing facts and weighing up the evidence.
What ever you think about Kimmage, he at least can write a good article/book when he wants to. Shane Stokes is just a crap journalist.
Faced with that level of (in)competance, what are Froome/Sky to do. It is perfectly acceptable for Nibali/Qunitana and even proven & banned drugs cheat Contadope (sic) to just refuse to answer questions. Can you imagine the furore if Sky tried that? They cannot win. There were people rubbishing these tests based on a vine clip FFS! Froome has done them off his own back. I presume that GQ have payed him a decent some of money (far more than CN, Velonews could dream to offer) so why not get something out of it, even if it's a couple of free suits and a photoshoot. The actual results of the tests will be totally ignored regardless...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
A lot of sense spoken here but a few things that I'd like to clear up with regards to Froome's tests and the following paragraph:
'If he has done nothing, then stop pandering to the mob. This lab test business. If the choice of magazine is as per what I've been told, then its just going to inflame things as a platform for a puff piece - and its not going to be a peer-reviewed, scientific paper. Now things are such that it doesn't really matter what the article says, what it contains, it will be rubbished immediately by many.'
The magazine is Esquire. I was the journalist in the lab and I offered the story to Esquire because they publish long-form journalism, and I have done stories with them before and liked what they did. The choice of publication was mine. It's not a puff piece. The work done in the lab will appear as a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, but this will take time.
The article will be published on 3 December. The delay is because it took the scientists (two from the GSK lab in London and Jeroen Swart from South Africa) several weeks to finalise their report. It then took me a couple of weeks to write the story and Esquire work about 6 weeks ahead of publication.
Hope that clears up some of the points. Happy to answer any questions about it.0 -
A lot of sense spoken here but a few things that I'd like to clear up with regards to Froome's tests and the following paragraph:
'If he has done nothing, then stop pandering to the mob. This lab test business. If the choice of magazine is as per what I've been told, then its just going to inflame things as a platform for a puff piece - and its not going to be a peer-reviewed, scientific paper. Now things are such that it doesn't really matter what the article says, what it contains, it will be rubbished immediately by many.'
The magazine is Esquire. I was the journalist in the lab and I offered the story to Esquire because they publish long-form journalism, and I have done stories with them before and liked what they did. The choice of publication was mine. It's not a puff piece. The work done in the lab will appear as a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, but this will take time.
The article will be published on 3 December. The delay is because it took the scientists (two from the GSK lab in London and Jeroen Swart from South Africa) several weeks to finalise their report. It then took me a couple of weeks to write the story and Esquire work about 6 weeks ahead of publication.
Hope that clears up some of the points. Happy to answer any questions about it.
Do you not think with it being published by Esquire that it will miss its target audience? I'll confess to showing my ignorance here as I don't know anything about esquire magazine0
