Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

smithy21

Pinno wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

...

...

I concur, I mean ...

tailwindhome

..---

---

---

---

-. --. -..-. -- .-.. / .-.. --- .-..

Matthewfalle

TailWindHome wrote:

..---

---

---

---

-. --. -..-. -- .-.. / .-.. --- .-..

... —- ...

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

..---

---

---

---

-. --. -..-. -- .-.. / .-.. --- .-..

... —- ...

Is that some sort of reference to Abba?

No_Ta_Doctor

.-- .- -.- . / -- . / ..- .--. / .-- .... . -. / - .... . .-. . .----. ... / .- / -... .-.. --- --- -.. / -... .- --. --..-- / . .--. --- --..-- / .... --. .... / --- .-. / - . ... - --- ... - . .-. --- -. . / - --- / --. . - / . -..- -.-. .. - . -.. / .- -... --- ..- - .-.-.- / .. / -.-. .- -. - / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. / --. . - / .. - / ..- .--. / ..-. --- .-. / ... .- .-.. -... ..- - .- -- --- .-..

pinno

No tA Doctor wrote:

.-- .- -.- . / -- . / ..- .--. / .-- .... . -. / - .... . .-. . .----. ... / .- / -... .-.. --- --- -.. / -... .- --. --..-- / . .--. --- --..-- / .... --. .... / --- .-. / - . ... - --- ... - . .-. --- -. . / - --- / --. . - / . -..- -.-. .. - . -.. / .- -... --- ..- - .-.-.- / .. / -.-. .- -. - / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. / --. . - / .. - / ..- .--. / ..-. --- .-. / ... .- .-.. -... ..- - .- -- --- .-..

- .... .- - / .. ... / -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . / -.-- --- ..- / -.. --- -. .----. - / ..- -. -.. . .-. ... - .- -. -.. / - .... . / -- .- ... ... . ... / -....- / -... .- -.-- .. -. --. / ..-. --- .-. / -... .-.. --- --- -.. .-.-.- / - .- -.- .. -. --. / .- / ... .-- .. .--. . / -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . / .. - / -- .- -.- . ... / - .... . -- / ..-. . . .-.. / .-.. . ... ... / .. -. ... .. --. -. .. ..-. .. -.-. .- -. - .-.-.- / -... - .-- / -....- / .-- . / .--. .-.. .- -.-- . -.. / - .... .. ... / --. .- -- . / .. -. / -... -... .-.-.- / - .... . -. / - .... . / -- --- -.. ... / ... .-.. .- .--. .--. . -.. / ..- ... / --- -. / - .... . / .-- .-. .. ... - ... / -... ..- - / -. --- .-- / - .... . -.-- / .- .-. . / - --- --- - .... .-.. . ... ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .. -. ... . .-. .-. - / ... -- .. .-.. . -.-- / .. -.-. --- -. .-.-.-

RichN95.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Now you're just muddying the water.

debeli

Posts like these send out all the wrong signals....

bompington

004D 006F 0072 0065 0020 006E 006F 006E 0073 0065 006E 0073 0065

bompington

Debeli wrote:

Posts like these send out all the wrong signals....

Some morse so than others

daniel_b

Matthewfalle

pinno

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I understand the process. The question was around public interest.

Have a read about what 'Public Interest' actually means (a couple of articles amongst many):

https://inforrm.org/2011/10/08/is-there ... -cathcart/
https://labourlist.org/2011/05/public-i ... teresting/

It must be right your Sir I got it from google. Bahahaha

I refer to my earlier comment about arguing with idiots.

trivial_poursuivant

Thank Christ I don’t have to use this sh1t no more

RichN95.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It must be right your Sir I got it from google. Bahahaha

I refer to my earlier comment about arguing with idiots.

Yes, I used a search engine to find relevant articles for you to read. But I knew what to search for and knew it was there didn't I. As have probably seen, they repeat what I have already said. And which you have not challenged.

Really I would recommend that you try arguing with idiots. It will help you to stop repeating the same mistakes they do.

gethinceri

Batco? Bloody hell, me too!

Ben6899

Vino'sGhost wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

of course we have a right to know. Public money is spent on BC to win medals one of those medals has been won by someone with a cloud hanging over his head.
If that were the only thing it might justify keeping it private. BUT its not, the whole jiffy bag, bullying debacle, questionable TUEs and misdelivered drugs whiffs. OK some people like the smell but that there is a smell is undeniable by anyone other than the deluded or dim.

If you understood the process you would understand that at this stage the public don't have the right to know.

Should you have been informed after the A sample?

I understand the process. The question was around public interest.

As has been stated, you clearly don't understand what that means.

top_bhoy

How is Froome being outed for greatly exceeding a known stated medicinal dosage any different from someone who's name ends up in the newspaper after being arrested for a minor offence (noting that no admission of guilt is made at time of arrest)?

I'd prefer it if only people found guilty of an actual offence were publicly named but that isn't the case in today's world.

DeVlaeminck

There are arguments both ways for confidentiality in these things. Yes it might be argued why should a rider's reputation be damaged unfairly if they are subsequently cleared but at the same time the more that is kept within limited circles the easier it is for them to be swept under the carpet as we subsequently found out with Armstrong.

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

larkim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

I'd broadly agree with this if it were not for the fact that we are told by various sources (e.g. Cycling News) that "others" have been in Froome's position and not been sanctioned - http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ase-362848 final paragraph

Froome's is only in the public domain because there are journalists who's mission is to find the smoking gun in relation to Sky or Froome's illegal practice, and who work on the basis that that smoking gun does exist. They don't consider that it might not, so they feel it is fair to subvert the process and allow the public to draw a conclusion about Froome that seems superficially easy to conclude, even if it has the potential still to be concluded either in Froome's favour or not.

gsk82

larkim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

I'd broadly agree with this if it were not for the fact that we are told by various sources (e.g. Cycling News) that "others" have been in Froome's position and not been sanctioned - http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ase-362848 final paragraph

Froome's is only in the public domain because there are journalists who's mission is to find the smoking gun in relation to Sky or Froome's illegal practice, and who work on the basis that that smoking gun does exist. They don't consider that it might not, so they feel it is fair to subvert the process and allow the public to draw a conclusion about Froome that seems superficially easy to conclude, even if it has the potential still to be concluded either in Froome's favour or not.

I fully expect that the leaker will have been the new uci president. He even confirmed the rumours of a case to journalists while saying something along the lines of "i know i shouldn't but...". The only surprise to me is that he didn't blurt it out on Twitter beforehand.

r0bh

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically.

Not sure I agree with this; you can't put the genie back in the bottle unfortunately. See also completely bogus tabloid headlines that are later admitted to be entirely without merit in a tiny corrections panel on page 34

bobmcstuff

r0bh wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically.

Not sure I agree with this; you can't put the genie back in the bottle unfortunately. See also completely bogus tabloid headlines that are later admitted to be entirely without merit in a tiny corrections panel on page 34

I think if literally everything was open, it would lose its luster with the tabloids.

However there's pretty serious ethical issues with disclosing everybody's medical records.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There are arguments both ways for confidentiality in these things. Yes it might be argued why should a rider's reputation be damaged unfairly if they are subsequently cleared but at the same time the more that is kept within limited circles the easier it is for them to be swept under the carpet as we subsequently found out with Armstrong.

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

I understand your view and agree it's a bit of a dilemma but under the current rules we should not currently be in a position where we know anything about Froome's case. Unfortunately, we also live in an age where so many people confuse accusation with guilt (albeit there has been a lot in the news in the last few years to feed this with people being cleared of crimes and then later it comes out they were guilty after all).

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There are arguments both ways for confidentiality in these things. Yes it might be argued why should a rider's reputation be damaged unfairly if they are subsequently cleared but at the same time the more that is kept within limited circles the easier it is for them to be swept under the carpet as we subsequently found out with Armstrong.

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

I really comes down to what you think the law (in general) is there for.

Is it to protect the innocent or is it to punish the guilty? Is collateral damage to the innocent acceptable to bring the guilty to justice, and if so how much?

There is no right answer. Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. Personally I subscribe to Blackstone that it is better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.

gsk82

What about the suffering Froome is subject to? If he's found innocent he's still got this against him and will be subject to levels of abuse not seen in recent times upon his return.

Matthewfalle

gsk82 wrote:

What about the suffering Froome is subject to? If he's found innocent he's still got this against him and will be subject to levels of abuse not seen in recent times upon his return.

Yes, this. Poor Chris.

However I suppose 4 million pounds a year for riding a bicycle may offset It a tad.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There are arguments both ways for confidentiality in these things. Yes it might be argued why should a rider's reputation be damaged unfairly if they are subsequently cleared but at the same time the more that is kept within limited circles the easier it is for them to be swept under the carpet as we subsequently found out with Armstrong.

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

I really comes down to what you think the law (in general) is there for.

Is it to protect the innocent or is it to punish the guilty? Is collateral damage to the innocent acceptable to bring the guilty to justice, and if so how much?

There is no right answer. Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. Personally I subscribe to Blackstone that it is better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.

All very well and good, Blackstone invoking genisis in a time where the bible was still taken as gospel by many and used as a lightning rod for signalling virtue and deciding moral direction. But is it appropriate now? You might consider the fine islamic version which also includes throwing adulterers off high buildings. I suspect only academic liberalism would find this the right way ahead now.

Although they seem to be re writing history so dont hold your breath.