Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

pamplemoose

larkim wrote:

It's not the papers' faults for publishing, that's their jobs. It's the UCI's fault (or a maverick individual within the UCI) for the leak in the first place.

I disagree. Just because someone gave them the information, it didn't mean they had to publish it. They took a decision that selling papers/getting page views was more important than respecting Froome's anonymity whilst the usual AAF process was followed. It's like publishing the name of a suspect in a criminal case before an investigation has been completed.

Pross

Nick Payne wrote:

What a load of horseshit. Ulissi returns a reading of 1900ng/ml and gets a nine month suspension. Froome returns a higher reading and the anti-doping authorities collapse in a heap. Money doesn't talk it swears.

Yes, WADA who exist solely to fight doping in sport were paid off. After all, that is far more likely than they were presented with evidence to support why the output reading did not prove too much was ingested and that their experts considered this evidence and gave a conclusion that the AAF was satisfactorily explained - you know, exactly as the procedure is supposed to work.

I would suggest it's best not to post when you seem ignorant of the process.

Pross

pamplemoose wrote:

larkim wrote:

It's not the papers' faults for publishing, that's their jobs. It's the UCI's fault (or a maverick individual within the UCI) for the leak in the first place.

I disagree. Just because someone gave them the information, it didn't mean they had to publish it. They took a decision that selling papers/getting page views was more important than respecting Froome's anonymity whilst the usual AAF process was followed. It's like publishing the name of a suspect in a criminal case before an investigation has been completed.

Um, papers do report on suspects as soon as they are arrested. No newspaper is going to turn down a leaked piece of information, it is why they exist. It is entirely the UCI's responsibility to protect that information though.

BikeRadarAdmin

Any objections to me merging this, the Hinault thread and 'Froome out' seeing as they're all now covering the same topic?

Pross

Makes sense!

bobmcstuff

joshjevans wrote:

Any objections to me merging this, the Hinault thread and 'Froome out' seeing as they're all now covering the same topic?

Probably for the best

mfin

Cleared. Well, that was worth all the debate and speculation

drhaggis

john1967 wrote:

To all the Sky and Froome haters ..get over it and move on

No. Froome is a proven cheat by means of his a-sample and b-sample AAF. The fact that his lawyers got him a get out of jail free card won't change that.

bobmcstuff

DrHaggis wrote:

john1967 wrote:

To all the Sky and Froome haters ..get over it and move on

No. Froome is a proven cheat by means of his a-sample and b-sample AAF. The fact that his lawyers got him a get out of jail free card won't change that.

That's just not the case, think you need to take another look at the facts.

mamil314

DrHaggis wrote:

john1967 wrote:

To all the Sky and Froome haters ..get over it and move on

No. Froome is a proven cheat by means of his a-sample and b-sample AAF. The fact that his lawyers got him a get out of jail free card won't change that.

Proven cheat by who? The same WADA that just cleared him?

Pross

DrHaggis wrote:

john1967 wrote:

To all the Sky and Froome haters ..get over it and move on

No. Froome is a proven cheat by means of his a-sample and b-sample AAF. The fact that his lawyers got him a get out of jail free card won't change that.

As said above, when you are ignorant of the actual rules and processes it's best not to type but just to stress it again - he has provided sufficient evidence to satisfactorily explain why the sample reading did not correlate with ingesting excess salbutamol (which is where there would have been an anti-doping violation) i.e. the experts at WADA are satisfied that he did not take more than he was permitted and he therefore hasn't cheated. It's nothing to do with lawyers, it's scientific evidence. But I suspect you know that and are trolling or you have just invested so much into hoping Froome would be banned that you are now spitting out your dummy and stamping your feet. You'll have to wait a while for your 'Lance moment' I'm afraid.

tailwindhome

Can someone check on Richmond Racer?
Ta

topper_harley

DrHaggis wrote:

john1967 wrote:

To all the Sky and Froome haters ..get over it and move on

No. Froome is a proven cheat by means of his a-sample and b-sample AAF. The fact that his lawyers got him a get out of jail free card won't change that.

How can he be a proven cheat yet also get cleared?

I’m sure you’ll be first in line the next 3 weeks with a cup of piss

redvision

DrHaggis wrote:

john1967 wrote:

To all the Sky and Froome haters ..get over it and move on

No. Froome is a proven cheat by means of his a-sample and b-sample AAF. The fact that his lawyers got him a get out of jail free card won't change that.

He's been cleared. That's all that matters.

I was convinced he had cheated as I couldn't understand how he could race on had his asthma been so bad to warrant the level of salbutamol in his system (I say this as someone with severe asthma). But I have confidence in the investigation and the outcome. It does look like the testing for salbutamol may be flawed, but the thing which matters most now is that Froome did nothing wrong.

iainf72

As a general point, it's always good to ask yourself "what would change my mind about this?"

If you don't have an answer, then you aren't thinking rationally and should have a reset.

Froome produced an AAF for a specified substance. He was asked to explain it. He has done this and WADA have found his explanation satisfactory. If they hadn't, an anti-doping case would've been opened.

What happened in other cases is broadly irrelevant.

above_the_cows

Pross wrote:

pamplemoose wrote:

larkim wrote:

It's not the papers' faults for publishing, that's their jobs. It's the UCI's fault (or a maverick individual within the UCI) for the leak in the first place.

I disagree. Just because someone gave them the information, it didn't mean they had to publish it. They took a decision that selling papers/getting page views was more important than respecting Froome's anonymity whilst the usual AAF process was followed. It's like publishing the name of a suspect in a criminal case before an investigation has been completed.

Um, papers do report on suspects as soon as they are arrested. No newspaper is going to turn down a leaked piece of information, it is why they exist. It is entirely the UCI's responsibility to protect that information though.

Newspapers do turn down leaked info/stories because they consider that the story has ethical, legal or potentially dangerous implications. They don't publish everything they are given, the journalists along with the editors and often the lawyers weigh-up the repercussions of going to press on particular stories and particular stories containing particular information.

Often newspapers turn down leaked information only for other newspapers to accept it. Journalists and editors have agency, they make decisions about whether they want a story to go to press and they determine how that story is presented.

A newspaper is not Wikileaks where vast swathes of unfiltered info is just dumped. There is an argument to be made about the Guardian's and Le Monde's decision to publish such leaked info. They did not have to, they chose to and they have to in part own the ethical fall-out of that decision.

Pross

iainf72 wrote:

As a general point, it's always good to ask yourself "what would change my mind about this?"

If you don't have an answer, then you aren't thinking rationally and should have a reset.

Froome produced an AAF for a specified substance. He was asked to explain it. He has done this and WADA have found his explanation satisfactory. If they hadn't, an anti-doping case would've been opened.

What happened in other cases is broadly irrelevant.

Yes, but this ignores



"but I really, really wanted him to be guilty, it's just not fair - I'm going to keep calling him a cheat anyway because he just is"

tangled_metal

Haters are gonna hate!

larkim

Amusing double standards on Ulissi from Tucker:-
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/stat ... 2822983680

Somehow he believes Ulissi was innocent, but couldn't prove the test was flawed so took a ban.

But he doesn't believe Froome's protestations that he was innocent, so shouldn't be able to take advantage of the test being flawed...

joenobody

iainf72 wrote:

As a general point, it's always good to ask yourself "what would change my mind about this?"

If you don't have an answer, then you aren't thinking rationally and should have a reset.

There's a lot of this needed in so many things happening across the world right now. It's a shame people don't consider it more often.

orraloon

Balanced? Impartial? This on the BBC news website:

"BBC Sports Editor Dan Roan:

This will come as a massive relief for Team Sky. Had Froome been banned, the team's 'zero-tolerance' policy towards doping could have meant his dismissal, and potentially the collapse of the entire operation.

The result will be the source of intense frustration at the UCI who pursued this case over several months, but who were ultimately advised by Wada that Froome's expensively-assembled legal team had sufficient evidence to cast doubt on whether his sample was 'adverse'.

It will also be the source of some confusion that riders with lower salbutamol readings than Froome's - like Italian sprinter Alessandro Petacchi in 2007 - have served bans.

Many will be concerned at the time and money spent on this saga, the damage done to the sport's image while its number one rider was under such suspicion, and Wada's ability to uphold its rules.

There will also be worries about the reception Froome can expect from some fans on the roads of France over the next month's racing."

timoid.

Can we please ban the word "haters" from the forum?

bigmat

orraloon wrote:

Balanced? Impartial? This on the BBC news website:

"BBC Sports Editor Dan Roan:

This will come as a massive relief for Team Sky. Had Froome been banned, the team's 'zero-tolerance' policy towards doping could have meant his dismissal, and potentially the collapse of the entire operation.

The result will be the source of intense frustration at the UCI who pursued this case over several months, but who were ultimately advised by Wada that Froome's expensively-assembled legal team had sufficient evidence to cast doubt on whether his sample was 'adverse'.

It will also be the source of some confusion that riders with lower salbutamol readings than Froome's - like Italian sprinter Alessandro Petacchi in 2007 - have served bans.

Many will be concerned at the time and money spent on this saga, the damage done to the sport's image while its number one rider was under such suspicion, and Wada's ability to uphold its rules.

There will also be worries about the reception Froome can expect from some fans on the roads of France over the next month's racing."

He's so concerned about he sport's image that the only time he ever reports on it is in relation to doping stories. If only he had similar concerns aboutthe image of rugby, football, tennis, boxing etc.

RichN95.

The sad thing is that the BBC website's chief sports writer, Tom Fordyce, really does know a lot about cycling and is a lot more nuanced.

bobmcstuff

Yeah, Fordyce is a good writer. Roan is just a bandwagon jumper.

Pross

Roan should be kept away from a keyboard for his own benefit. You expect people on the internet to post without worrying about facts but surely the Sports Editor of one of the world's main media outlets should at least try to grasp their subject matter. He's thrown a lot of effort into painting a picture of Sky as dopers through Wiggins and Froome so I guess he's still frustrated he hasn't had 'the big one'.

Pross

Also, why does he appear to suggest WADA are having a problem upholding their rules when that seems to have been exactly what has happened in this case?

tailwindhome

Deleted

mamil314

Timoid. wrote:

Can we please ban the word "haters" from the forum?

What other description would you suggest? It's been suggested over and over, to no avail, what evidence is available and how rules work. Personally, i think it's the polite version of addressing. This gives them benefit of doubt as irrational/emotional haters, since no logic upholds their argument.

rick_chasey

Timoid. wrote:

Can we please ban the word "haters" from the forum?

Ha.

Poor Cav.

Must be tough to keep that anger fire burning when you've achieved all you could possibly ever have achieved.