Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

argyllflyer

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

As leader it was 100% guaranteed he'd be tested. Why would he take anything beyond a threshold he would be well aware of? Intentionally taking it and guaranteeing a 'positive' seems an inexplicable action.

StillGoing

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

So should the day ever come where you're accused of something that you haven't done, you'll presumably stand up and take it like a man? :roll:

shipley

Froome’s test exceeded the permitted limit.

What hasn’t he done ?

rick_chasey

Merckx got punched by a fan on his way to his 6th Tour win.

The animosity comes mainly from winning a lot.

It’s be awful if that happens again but I wouldn’t put too much weight on what Hinault says in terms of crowd behaviour.

davidof

Rick Chasey wrote:

Merckx got punched by a fan on his way to his 6th Tour win.

and when he'd finished the stage went back and found the c***

https://www.sports-auvergne.fr/cyclisme ... 16584.html

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

So should the day ever come where you're accused of something that you haven't done, you'll presumably stand up and take it like a man? :roll:

What hasn’t he done? It’s the big picture I’m talking about. I appreciate not everyone has the capacity for that.

Vino'sGhost

davidof wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Merckx got punched by a fan on his way to his 6th Tour win.

and when he'd finished the stage went back and found the c***

Is that right? Hahahah good on him if he did

redvision

Personally, as I have said numerous times on here, I think Froome should have self suspended to protect the integrity of the sport. However, as much as I wish he had done this, the current rules do allow him to compete. So no matter what comments Hinault and others make, Froome will be on the start line.

Team sky are backing their rider and, from Lappartients comments on why it is taking so long to sort, it sounds like they have submitted substantial volumes of data as froomes defence - which could be a very clever tactic to delay the case hearing long enough to allow Froome to compete in the grand tours this year.

I suspect that rules will be changed so that similar cases will be heard much much quicker in the future, but in the meantime i am personally torn with this Froome case. I want him to be suspended because he exceeded the permitted allowance of salbutamol. I also believe sky and their doctor sound be punished for not pulling him out of the vuelta if his asthma was so bad he needed that amount of salbutamol (and i say this as some who suffers badly with asthma). However, with the history of the sport, if he is given a ban then I fear for the repercussions for cycling. He is the highest profile rider in the biggest team, which is supposed to be zero tolerance. The damage a doping ban could do to the sport is unthinkable.

awavey

redvision wrote:

Team sky are backing their rider and, from Lappartients comments on why it is taking so long to sort, it sounds like they have submitted substantial volumes of data as froomes defence - which could be a very clever tactic to delay the case hearing long enough to allow Froome to compete in the grand tours this year.

well you say that, but for what purpose, if Froome is found as not able to explain the results of the test, they suspend him for what at least 9months backdated to when the adverse test happened, then all his grand tour results will be voided, whilst Sky could still claim technically they did have all 3 Grand tour jerseys at the same time, plenty of people and not just in cycling wont count them any longer.

so I dont see that Sky are using it as a delaying tactic at all, because whenever the case finishes, the end result will be the same and the more races he wins in the period of the likely ban, the more Sky have to give up,

I think its genuinely just because of the process they are going through

bobmcstuff

Shipley wrote:

Froome’s test exceeded the permitted limit.

What hasn’t he done ?

The dose is set on what you take in, the test is on what you pee out. One is not a perfect proxy for the other.

So it doesn't necessarily follow that he took more the the limit, hence why he wasn't immediately banned.

StillGoing

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

So should the day ever come where you're accused of something that you haven't done, you'll presumably stand up and take it like a man? :roll:

What hasn’t he done? It’s the big picture I’m talking about. I appreciate not everyone has the capacity for that.

Its you that hasn't the capacity to appreciate the situation. He's alleged to have given a high result for Salbutomol use during a stage of the Giro. Under the UCI rules, this information would not be in the public eye until such time as he is proven guilty of the allegation, if indeed he is. In the meantime, he has the right to present a case for his defence and to continue competing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

So should the day ever come where you're accused of something that you haven't done, you'll presumably stand up and take it like a man? :roll:

What hasn’t he done? It’s the big picture I’m talking about. I appreciate not everyone has the capacity for that.

Its you that hasn't the capacity to appreciate the situation. He's alleged to have given a high result for Salbutomol use during a stage of the Giro. Under the UCI rules, this information would not be in the public eye until such time as he is proven guilty of the allegation, if indeed he is. In the meantime, he has the right to present a case for his defence and to continue competing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

What you say is correct, in so much as a child doesn't look at the whole picture when answering a question. It's the difference between tactical and strategic; my comment about your capacity stands firm.

StillGoing

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

So should the day ever come where you're accused of something that you haven't done, you'll presumably stand up and take it like a man? :roll:

What hasn’t he done? It’s the big picture I’m talking about. I appreciate not everyone has the capacity for that.

Its you that hasn't the capacity to appreciate the situation. He's alleged to have given a high result for Salbutomol use during a stage of the Giro. Under the UCI rules, this information would not be in the public eye until such time as he is proven guilty of the allegation, if indeed he is. In the meantime, he has the right to present a case for his defence and to continue competing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

What you say is correct, in so much as a child doesn't look at the whole picture when answering a question. It's the difference between tactical and strategic; my comment about your capacity stands firm.

As does my opinion of you as nothing but an anti-Sky troll. But, you still have no grounds for insisting that someone should admit guilt and take whatever punishment where they believe they are innocent. Only a complete buffoon would do so and I believe the cap fits your head.

DeVlaeminck

awavey wrote:

redvision wrote:

Team sky are backing their rider and, from Lappartients comments on why it is taking so long to sort, it sounds like they have submitted substantial volumes of data as froomes defence - which could be a very clever tactic to delay the case hearing long enough to allow Froome to compete in the grand tours this year.

well you say that, but for what purpose, if Froome is found as not able to explain the results of the test, they suspend him for what at least 9months backdated to when the adverse test happened, then all his grand tour results will be voided, whilst Sky could still claim technically they did have all 3 Grand tour jerseys at the same time, plenty of people and not just in cycling wont count them any longer.

so I dont see that Sky are using it as a delaying tactic at all, because whenever the case finishes, the end result will be the same and the more races he wins in the period of the likely ban, the more Sky have to give up,

I think its genuinely just because of the process they are going through

I understood any ban wouldn't be backdated though presumably he'd lose the Vuelta. A 9 month ban just after the Tour would mean he doesn't miss a great deal and would also explain the Giro Tour double this year if his season was going to come to a premature end.

slowmart

Shipley wrote:

Well we’ll wait and see shall we.

Which is more important, SKY or the sport ?

.... only an idiot would believe this will be resolved satisfactorily. Either way Froome will be plagued with suspicion, and in the meantime puts himself at risk from spoilers in the Tour.

I’ve already stated how SKY could have sorted it earlier, but they missed their chance, and despite those worshipping at their altar, the recent accusations are irreparable (whether true or false).

It's not a binary question.

The rules of the sport allow him to race.

In the context of whats best for the sport I agree it would have been better for all concerned for Froome to withdraw from competition until an outcome. However the commercial, reputational and ethical need of Sky to come out of this without a stain is immense. No doubt they have ethical clauses in their sponsor contracts for claw backs if any rider is banned for drug use and the damage to their reputation and legacy if a guilty determination is found is immeasurable. Sky have robustly defended their rider which is a reasonable response as an employer to take and are misdirecting the focus of the drugs result to one of process and procedure through the context of the UCI rules.

It's a "innocent view" that Sky wouldn't fight tooth and nail in this situation for their reputation when you have such a ruthless and effective mindset applied to the racing team.

From Sky's perspective everything else drops away and they'll use everything they can to get the outcome they want.

If you've heard the old story of the scorpion and frog you won't need reminding which one Sky is

above_the_cows

Slowmart wrote:

In the context of whats best for the sport I agree it would have been better for all concerned for Froome to withdraw from competition until an outcome.

The thing is no one is supposed to even know about the AAF. So if he'd withdrawn from racing he'd effectively be going against due process.

I really don't think it can be stressed enough that none of us, Hinault included, should even be having this conversation.

There's a reason that these things are supposed to be kept secret, to stop exactly the sort of shenanigans Hinault et. al have been up to that can adversely effect any outcome.

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

So should the day ever come where you're accused of something that you haven't done, you'll presumably stand up and take it like a man? :roll:

What hasn’t he done? It’s the big picture I’m talking about. I appreciate not everyone has the capacity for that.

Its you that hasn't the capacity to appreciate the situation. He's alleged to have given a high result for Salbutomol use during a stage of the Giro. Under the UCI rules, this information would not be in the public eye until such time as he is proven guilty of the allegation, if indeed he is. In the meantime, he has the right to present a case for his defence and to continue competing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

What you say is correct, in so much as a child doesn't look at the whole picture when answering a question. It's the difference between tactical and strategic; my comment about your capacity stands firm.

As does my opinion of you as nothing but an anti-Sky troll. But, you still have no grounds for insisting that someone should admit guilt and take whatever punishment where they believe they are innocent. Only a complete buffoon would do so and I believe the cap fits your head.

I'm not insisting anything; if you had the mental capacity to read what id written you might understand that. Also assigning labels "such as anti sky troll" is a tedious (but sometimes effective) of closing down reasoned discussion. That happens most often when one party, in this case you, is unwilling or incapable of considering alternatives.

Pross

Shipley wrote:

Froome’s test exceeded the permitted limit.

What hasn’t he done ?

You really do seem to have a problem understanding the rules and testing procedure. You're probably better off staying away from the debate until you understand the basics. Sports are based on arbitrary rules, if you break them you're a cheat and face the consequences but until that is shown to be the case why shouldn't you carry on competing as those rules specifically permit?

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

So is your argument that a rider and / or team that has broken the mandatory rules of their sport should be trusted to follow the rules of a voluntary organisation even when, if due process is followed, that organisation should not even be aware of the presence of an AAF?

ddraver

What's the story of the scorpion and the frog?

slowmart

Scorpion wants to cross a river, but he can't swim. Goes to the frog, who can, and asks for a ride. Frog says, "If I give you a ride on my back, you'll go and sting me." Scorpion replies, "It would not be in my interest to sting you since as I'll be on your back we both would drown." Frog thinks about this logic for a while and accepts the deal. Takes the scorpion on his back. Braves the waters. Halfway over feels a burning spear in his side and realizes the scorpion has stung him after all. And as they both sink beneath the waves the frog cries out, "Why did you sting me, Mr. Scorpion, for now we both will drown?" Scorpion replies, "I can't help it, it's in my nature."

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

So is your argument that a rider and / or team that has broken the mandatory rules of their sport should be trusted to follow the rules of a voluntary organisation even when, if due process is followed, that organisation should not even be aware of the presence of an AAF?

I wasn't aware that I was making an argument. I thought I was merely responding to Tangled Metal's wish to know about all other AAFs with some background information that might help shed some light on how many AAFs there are to know about.

ddraver

Slowmart wrote:

Scorpion wants to cross a river, but he can't swim. Goes to the frog, who can, and asks for a ride. Frog says, "If I give you a ride on my back, you'll go and sting me." Scorpion replies, "It would not be in my interest to sting you since as I'll be on your back we both would drown." Frog thinks about this logic for a while and accepts the deal. Takes the scorpion on his back. Braves the waters. Halfway over feels a burning spear in his side and realizes the scorpion has stung him after all. And as they both sink beneath the waves the frog cries out, "Why did you sting me, Mr. Scorpion, for now we both will drown?" Scorpion replies, "I can't help it, it's in my nature."

...dude that's f**ked up!

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

So is your argument that a rider and / or team that has broken the mandatory rules of their sport should be trusted to follow the rules of a voluntary organisation even when, if due process is followed, that organisation should not even be aware of the presence of an AAF?

I wasn't aware that I was making an argument. I thought I was merely responding to Tangled Metal's wish to know about all other AAFs with some background information that might help shed some light on how many AAFs there are to know about.

OK, if you don't like the word argument you were making the case we know those riders do not have an AAF hanging over them as they are still riding and are MPCC members. It still seems tenuous grounds on which to claim we 'know' for the reasons stated.

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

So is your argument that a rider and / or team that has broken the mandatory rules of their sport should be trusted to follow the rules of a voluntary organisation even when, if due process is followed, that organisation should not even be aware of the presence of an AAF?

I wasn't aware that I was making an argument. I thought I was merely responding to Tangled Metal's wish to know about all other AAFs with some background information that might help shed some light on how many AAFs there are to know about.

OK, if you don't like the word argument you were making the case we know those riders do not have an AAF hanging over them as they are still riding and are MPCC members. It still seems tenuous grounds on which to claim we 'know' for the reasons stated.

What grounds do you have for suggesting that one or more of these teams is lying about this?

kleinstroker

Above The Cows wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

In the context of whats best for the sport I agree it would have been better for all concerned for Froome to withdraw from competition until an outcome.

The thing is no one is supposed to even know about the AAF. So if he'd withdrawn from racing he'd effectively be going against due process.

I really don't think it can be stressed enough that none of us, Hinault included, should even be having this conversation.

There's a reason that these things are supposed to be kept secret, to stop exactly the sort of shenanigans Hinault et. al have been up to that can adversely effect any outcome.

Agreed, this all because of a "french leak". It probably wouldn't happen to anyone but Froome

Vino'sGhost

well Froome is a multi GC winning rider and there havent been many of those without a wiff in the last oh 30 years.

Certainly none from all conquering team sky

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

So is your argument that a rider and / or team that has broken the mandatory rules of their sport should be trusted to follow the rules of a voluntary organisation even when, if due process is followed, that organisation should not even be aware of the presence of an AAF?

I wasn't aware that I was making an argument. I thought I was merely responding to Tangled Metal's wish to know about all other AAFs with some background information that might help shed some light on how many AAFs there are to know about.

OK, if you don't like the word argument you were making the case we know those riders do not have an AAF hanging over them as they are still riding and are MPCC members. It still seems tenuous grounds on which to claim we 'know' for the reasons stated.

What grounds do you have for suggesting that one or more of these teams is lying about this?

None, I'm not claiming they are but that's not the same as knowing they aren't. But to turn it on its head, why are you prepared to accept that they are definitely following the rules of a voluntary code when I suspect we will all agree that there are riders, and possibly teams, that don't abide by the mandatory rules of the sport?

tangled_metal

ddraver wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Scorpion wants to cross a river, but he can't swim. Goes to the frog, who can, and asks for a ride. Frog says, "If I give you a ride on my back, you'll go and sting me." Scorpion replies, "It would not be in my interest to sting you since as I'll be on your back we both would drown." Frog thinks about this logic for a while and accepts the deal. Takes the scorpion on his back. Braves the waters. Halfway over feels a burning spear in his side and realizes the scorpion has stung him after all. And as they both sink beneath the waves the frog cries out, "Why did you sting me, Mr. Scorpion, for now we both will drown?" Scorpion replies, "I can't help it, it's in my nature."

...dude that's f**ked up!

It's a more recent version of an Aesop's fable (farmer and viper iirc). Aesop's tales date way back and were written in ancient Greek and Latin I believe. So it's an old moral tale.

RichN95.

Tangled Metal wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Scorpion wants to cross a river, but he can't swim. Goes to the frog, who can, and asks for a ride. Frog says, "If I give you a ride on my back, you'll go and sting me." Scorpion replies, "It would not be in my interest to sting you since as I'll be on your back we both would drown." Frog thinks about this logic for a while and accepts the deal. Takes the scorpion on his back. Braves the waters. Halfway over feels a burning spear in his side and realizes the scorpion has stung him after all. And as they both sink beneath the waves the frog cries out, "Why did you sting me, Mr. Scorpion, for now we both will drown?" Scorpion replies, "I can't help it, it's in my nature."

...dude that's f**ked up!

It's a more recent version of an Aesop's fable (farmer and viper iirc). Aesop's tales date way back and were written in ancient Greek and Latin I believe. So it's an old moral tale.

As put to song brilliantly by Al Wilson (with some great subtext) https://youtu.be/ULx9k2QkL94