Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

The Ulissi ruling acknowledged there was no intention to cheat and that it was just a mistake

Did they?

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/ul ... ght_454257

daniel_b

dabber

TailWindHome wrote:

Dabber wrote:

We should rename this thread "Groundhog Day".

Ironically I think someone already has...

Ah, Yes... sorry I see that Pross already suggested that. I missed it among all the crap.

Matthewfalle

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The Ulissi ruling acknowledged there was no intention to cheat and that it was just a mistake

Did they?

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/ul ... ght_454257

Either way he was still banned so sticking by this ruling so should Froome for the same length of time.

And Ulissi had less in his system.

blazing_saddles

Dabber wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Dabber wrote:

We should rename this thread "Groundhog Day".

Ironically I think someone already has...

Ah, Yes... sorry I see that Pross already suggested that. I missed it among all the crap.

But seeing this is the "Groundhog Day" thread, shouldn't someone rename the renaming, every so often?

Matthewfalle

So, just to be sure, are people saying that Froome shouldn’t be banned?

bobmcstuff

Matthewfalle wrote:

So, just to be sure, are people saying that Froome shouldn’t be banned?

Depends if his PK testing and whatever other arguments he makes pass muster with the anti doping people.

If yes: No, he shouldn't be banned
If no: Yes, he clearly should be banned.

tailwindhome

bobmcstuff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

So, just to be sure, are people saying that Froome shouldn’t be banned?

Depends if his PK testing and whatever other arguments he makes pass muster with the anti doping people.

If yes: No, he shouldn't be banned
If no: Yes, he clearly should be banned.

I'll make my own mind up

Matthewfalle

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

mididoctors

if he can't explain why he has that level in him he takes the ban...them be the rules. If the rules are wrong they get amended looked into AFTER he tales the hit.

I'm ok with him taking the ban and seeing him back after. I don't think its a sign of systemic anything just a medical FU.

but they be the regs

norvernrob

TailWindHome wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

So, just to be sure, are people saying that Froome shouldn’t be banned?

Depends if his PK testing and whatever other arguments he makes pass muster with the anti doping people.

If yes: No, he shouldn't be banned
If no: Yes, he clearly should be banned.

I'll make my own mind up

Without any details of the evidence submitted by Sky/Froome, and regardless of what the outcome is?

bobmcstuff

TailWindHome wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

So, just to be sure, are people saying that Froome shouldn’t be banned?

Depends if his PK testing and whatever other arguments he makes pass muster with the anti doping people.

If yes: No, he shouldn't be banned
If no: Yes, he clearly should be banned.

I'll make my own mind up

The question was whether or not he should be banned, not whether or not you believe him.

john1967

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

Yes. He has broken the rules.

Footballerist knocks the ball with his hand into the onion bag. Trangression of rules. Same same.

Breaking the rules deliberately and accidentally are clearly two different things.

Matthewfalle

john1967 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

Yes. He has broken the rules.

Footballerist knocks the ball with his hand into the onion bag. Trangression of rules. Same same.

Breaking the rules deliberately and accidentally are clearly two different things.

So what are you saying Froome did? Is it ok for him to cheat?

Matthewfalle

john1967 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

Yes. He has broken the rules.

Footballerist knocks the ball with his hand into the onion bag. Trangression of rules. Same same.

Breaking the rules deliberately and accidentally are clearly two different things.

Accidental also generally means that you put your hand up straightaway, say sorry, yup I messed up and take the consequences.

Cheating means that 6 months and 200 lawyers later you're still denying you did anything wrong.

Has Froome taken option (a) or option (b)?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Fancy a small wager on that? Loser buys winner chips and curry sauce?

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Yup.
I reckon so too.

Matthewfalle

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Yup.
I reckon so too.

Looks like I won't buying lunch for ages. Get on!

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Fancy a small wager on that? Loser buys winner chips and curry sauce?

I'd restrict it to posters with 1000+ posts. There's always some noob crazies.

And don't go confusing people thinking a ban is too long with thinking one is unjustified (if it comes to that - anything over 9 months will be BS)

And Caroline Street. Dorothy's or Tony's. I'm not getting chips and curry sauce anywhere else.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Fancy a small wager on that? Loser buys winner chips and curry sauce?

I'd restrict it to posters with 1000+ posts. There's always some noob crazies.

And don't go confusing people thinking a ban is too long with thinking one is unjustified (if it comes to that - anything over 9 months will be BS)

And Caroline Street. Dorothy's or Tony's. I'm not getting chips and curry sauce anywhere else.

Deal.

And I'll have mine from Fish n Fritz in Weymouth - best chip shop in Britain. Not eating anything from Edwyn's.

But no conditions - any moaning about any ban and saying it's too long or unjustified and I win. Ulissi got 9 months for the same thing, so should be basically the same.

I'll agree on the post count otherwise you'll get some right weirdos spitting in the curry sauce, so to speak.

gethinceri

Thank christ you're refined enough not to call it "Chippy Alley".

Matthewfalle

Actually, we can do the great chip hand over when we all meet up to protest against Dotard.

Chips, curry sauce, a pint and a riot. What more can we want from a holiday weekend?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

But no conditions - any moaning about any ban and saying it's too long or unjustified and I win.

No, I said people would accept him being banned. The length of sentence is a different discussion. (I'm willing to set the limit at Ulissi's nine months - anything above that is fair game for complaint)

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If he does get banned, will people accept it or will there be a big “it’s an injustice” thread?

I think everyone here will accept it. I think most currently accept that it's likely.

Hmm, likely? Not sure if it's better than evens... who knows.

rick_chasey

Given it's leaked, governing body and or sky would do good to issue time a timeline for this.

i.e. is this gonna drag out to the point where we have Froome racing?

joelsim

Froome’s (expected) defence appears to rule out a 9 month ban doesn’t it? All or nothing.

IMO he should get a ban as he was over the set limit.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But no conditions - any moaning about any ban and saying it's too long or unjustified and I win.

No, I said people would accept him being banned. The length of sentence is a different discussion. (I'm willing to set the limit at Ulissi's nine months - anything above that is fair game for complaint)

Even Bough he was s above Ulissis reading?

Matthewfalle

Joelsim wrote:

Froome’s (expected) defence appears to rule out a 9 month ban doesn’t it? All or nothing.

IMO he should get a ban as he was over the set limit.

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Froome’s (expected) defence appears to rule out a 9 month ban doesn’t it? All or nothing.

IMO he should get a ban as he was over the set limit.

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If it were accidental but he presented no defence, he would most certainly get a deuce off.