Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

1…2728303233…44

Comments

  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Personally I thought Wiggin's win could have been Froome's win. Even the commentator made the comment about Froome being the stronger rider on one key stage where he helped Wiggins get through a bad period. If it hadn't been Wiggins as team leader that year would Froome have been the team leader or worked him into that role by his performance / ability?

    Just curious because comments have been made about Wiggins and Froome on Wiggin's year. If it's his supplanting of Wiggins one year after his run that's created the dislike of him then what if sky had ignored sentiment and gone for the better rider as tour leader that year, Froome? You could say Wiggins stopped Froome getting his first tour win.
  • topper_harley
    topper_harley Posts: 597
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    The French view Froome as the English view Maradonna
    Maradonna definitely was/is on drugs though. Boat loads of them.

    Froome definitely is not LOLOLOL
    What drugs is Froome on?
    giphy.gif
  • topper_harley
    topper_harley Posts: 597
    darkhairedlord wrote:
    Wiggins was lauded, even by the French, as le gentleman. Froome attacked and subsequently deposed him to prevent him defending his Jersey the following year. Thats froomes ground zero for how he is treated by the race going public.
    Just my opinion!
    No it isn’t, they hate him because he’s British and winning their race riding for a British team, it’s nothing to do with 2012.... also some of the fake French sport scientist don’t help
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    darkhairedlord wrote:
    Wiggins was lauded, even by the French, as le gentleman. Froome attacked and subsequently deposed him to prevent him defending his Jersey the following year. Thats froomes ground zero for how he is treated by the race going public.
    Just my opinion!
    No, what happened was at the end of 2012 the Armstrong affair was concluded and he got banned. But he wasn't around to hate so people, and in particular the media, who now looked pretty dumb in the eyes of the public, needed a surrogate. Ask any Froome 'hater' why they hate and they will quickly draw comparisons to Armstrong. There was little ill will towards Sky or Froome prior to that.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,697
    darkhairedlord wrote:
    Wiggins was lauded, even by the French, as le gentleman. Froome attacked and subsequently deposed him to prevent him defending his Jersey the following year. Thats froomes ground zero for how he is treated by the race going public.
    Just my opinion!

    R....Richmond Racer??


    :wink:
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,249
    RichN95 wrote:
    darkhairedlord wrote:
    Wiggins was lauded, even by the French, as le gentleman. Froome attacked and subsequently deposed him to prevent him defending his Jersey the following year. Thats froomes ground zero for how he is treated by the race going public.
    Just my opinion!
    No, what happened was at the end of 2012 the Armstrong affair was concluded and he got banned. But he wasn't around to hate so people, and in particular the media, who now looked pretty dumb in the eyes of the public, needed a surrogate. Ask any Froome 'hater' why they hate and they will quickly draw comparisons to Armstrong. There was little ill will towards Sky or Froome prior to that.
    You do like your sweeping generalisations and pejorative terminology. People will have have many individual reasons for disliking Froome. Certainly, my own dislike for Froome started with his approach to his duties as a teammate during the 2012 tour.
  • gsk82
    gsk82 Posts: 3,599
    DeadCalm wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    darkhairedlord wrote:
    Wiggins was lauded, even by the French, as le gentleman. Froome attacked and subsequently deposed him to prevent him defending his Jersey the following year. Thats froomes ground zero for how he is treated by the race going public.
    Just my opinion!
    No, what happened was at the end of 2012 the Armstrong affair was concluded and he got banned. But he wasn't around to hate so people, and in particular the media, who now looked pretty dumb in the eyes of the public, needed a surrogate. Ask any Froome 'hater' why they hate and they will quickly draw comparisons to Armstrong. There was little ill will towards Sky or Froome prior to that.
    You do like your sweeping generalisations and pejorative terminology. People will have have many individual reasons for disliking Froome. Certainly, my own dislike for Froome started with his approach to his duties as a teammate during the 2012 tour.

    A lot of people don't like athletes who appear to be dominating. The dominance appears stronger because of the way sky rode those early tours and the way the opposition let them do it for fear of losing their minor places. A lot of losers who hang around on internet forums do so because they have no real life friends. They want to appear like individuals and be different. So, like goths for example, they copy what others do to show how different and cool they are.

    Add to that that the French hate seeing brits dominating their races. Race's that the French would otherwise not win for another reason other than them been crap.

    We're also in an age were the media can insinuate and suggest whatever they want, and do so because there's no professional integrity now that people on the internet can write pretty much whatever dross they want to get clicks.
    "Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Lappartient
    I know where the Froome leak came from. I'm not apologising as it didn't come from the UCI.

    So cross the UCI off the list
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Lappartient
    I know where the Froome leak came from. I'm not apologising as it didn't come from the UCI.

    So cross the UCI off the list

    Who does that leave?

    ASO as organisers of the Vuelta?

    UKAD?

    WADA?

    Sky?

    Someone close to Froome but not associated with any of the above?

    How can Lappartient be so sure it was not the UCI? If we're in an age of transparency I demand to see their data! :lol:
    Correlation is not causation.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    We done Lance on the issue yet?

    “For the folks who think you can just lawyer up and get round these guys. No, you can’t. I had more money and lawyers than sky do and I couldn’t get round them.”
    _
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/stat ... 5581401088
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    iainf72 wrote:

    So basically nearly 50% didn't lead to sanctions.

    And what's with the "As for how many of those non-sanctioned were made public, I am guessing all of them?" that makes no sense. What?

    EDIT - or is this sarcasm and I'm being dense?
    Correlation is not causation.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,653
    Above The Cows wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    So basically nearly 50% didn't lead to sanctions.

    And what's with the "As for how many of those non-sanctioned were made public, I am guessing all of them?" that makes no sense. What?

    EDIT - or is this sarcasm and I'm being dense?

    Yeah, I'm not getting that either.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    Above The Cows wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Lappartient
    I know where the Froome leak came from. I'm not apologising as it didn't come from the UCI.

    So cross the UCI off the list

    Who does that leave?

    ASO as organisers of the Vuelta?

    UKAD?

    WADA?

    Sky?

    Someone close to Froome but not associated with any of the above?

    How can Lappartient be so sure it was not the UCI? If we're in an age of transparency I demand to see their data! :lol:

    It looks like a really big hint to ASO. They have certainly been the most vocal in conclusion jumping.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Above The Cows wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    So basically nearly 50% didn't lead to sanctions.

    And what's with the "As for how many of those non-sanctioned were made public, I am guessing all of them?" that makes no sense. What?

    EDIT - or is this sarcasm and I'm being dense?
    And as I've mentioned elsewhere some of those sanctions were just a warning (for example all three done by UKAD, two of which remained anonymous)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Lappartient
    I know where the Froome leak came from. I'm not apologising as it didn't come from the UCI.

    So cross the UCI off the list
    But do we? Firstly, he's a politician so he may consider the independent testing unit CADF as technically 'not the UCI'. Secondly, I think the Guardian journalist said there was more than one source.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,653
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.

    It's a bloody stupid question.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    iainf72 wrote:

    How many tests for Salbutamol were done?
    What were the range of values for the 57 AAFs and the 30 sanctions.
    Why were the 27 AAF 'reversals' reversed?
    How many athletes were involved - 57? or did athletes return more than 1 AAF?
    How many AAFs per yer? Consistent, increasing or declining?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.

    It's a bloody stupid question.

    How so?
    I don't agree but I'm interested in why you think it is.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.

    Seems pretty much in the affirmative to me. What is it about his answer that you think is equivocal?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    TailWindHome wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.

    It's a bloody stupid question.

    How so?
    I don't agree but I'm interested in why you think it is.
    Because the answer is obvious. It suggests that having asthma is some sort of lifestyle choice.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,653
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.

    It's a bloody stupid question.

    How so?
    I don't agree but I'm interested in why you think it is.
    Because the answer is obvious. It suggests that having asthma is some sort of lifestyle choice.

    Or closer, it implies using an inhaler isn't necessary because he doesn't really have asthma but is using it as a PED.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    RichN95 wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Lappartient
    I know where the Froome leak came from. I'm not apologising as it didn't come from the UCI.

    So cross the UCI off the list
    But do we? Firstly, he's a politician so he may consider the independent testing unit CADF as technically 'not the UCI'. Secondly, I think the Guardian journalist said there was more than one source.

    I did wonder if that's what he meant too.

    To quote the UCI's website

    As Signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI believes that it leads the way in the protection of clean athletes. The independence of its anti-doping activities is fully safeguarded and the robustness and effectiveness of its program are confirmed and continuously enhanced.

    If they're serious about this, they need to out the leakers if they know who they are.

    This reminds me a bit of when Katie Hopkins lost the libel case with Jack Monroe. David Allen Green pointed out at the time that it was satisfying as Hopkins is a "baddie" but exactly the same legal arguments that were used could result in a "baddie" winning a case.

    Same with this - Everyone who thinks we should've known thinks of Froome as a "baddie", but if it was a "goodie" they like they'd feel somewhat different.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • gsk82
    gsk82 Posts: 3,599
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    How many tests for Salbutamol were done?
    What were the range of values for the 57 AAFs and the 30 sanctions.
    Why were the 27 AAF 'reversals' reversed?
    How many athletes were involved - 57? or did athletes return more than 1 AAF?
    How many AAFs per yer? Consistent, increasing or declining?

    All 27 were Chris Froome
    "Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    gsk82 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    How many tests for Salbutamol were done?
    What were the range of values for the 57 AAFs and the 30 sanctions.
    Why were the 27 AAF 'reversals' reversed?
    How many athletes were involved - 57? or did athletes return more than 1 AAF?
    How many AAFs per yer? Consistent, increasing or declining?

    All 27 were Chris Froome

    Even the ones in amateur boxing :D
  • tim000
    tim000 Posts: 718
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    gsk82 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    How many tests for Salbutamol were done?
    What were the range of values for the 57 AAFs and the 30 sanctions.
    Why were the 27 AAF 'reversals' reversed?
    How many athletes were involved - 57? or did athletes return more than 1 AAF?
    How many AAFs per yer? Consistent, increasing or declining?

    All 27 were Chris Froome

    Even the ones in amateur boxing :D
    they were bouhanni
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    tim000 wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    gsk82 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    How many tests for Salbutamol were done?
    What were the range of values for the 57 AAFs and the 30 sanctions.
    Why were the 27 AAF 'reversals' reversed?
    How many athletes were involved - 57? or did athletes return more than 1 AAF?
    How many AAFs per yer? Consistent, increasing or declining?

    All 27 were Chris Froome

    Even the ones in amateur boxing :D
    they were bouhanni
    Lock the thread, you win :lol:
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    edited July 2018
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Froome speaks well but the answer to the question "Are you still using Salbutamol?" needs refined

    "I'm still asthmatic, that hasn't changed" isn't great.

    It's a bloody stupid question.

    How so?
    I don't agree but I'm interested in why you think it is.
    Because the answer is obvious. It suggests that having asthma is some sort of lifestyle choice.

    Or closer, it implies using an inhaler isn't necessary because he doesn't really have asthma but is using it as a PED.

    Wouldn't it be bizarre if a rider wasn't asked about his ongoing usage of a product which he either uses innocently and could have cost him his career or uses as a PED and nearly ended his career?

    You should bear in mind that the only evidence there is that Froome has asthma is him saying so.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    gsk82 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    How many tests for Salbutamol were done?
    What were the range of values for the 57 AAFs and the 30 sanctions.
    Why were the 27 AAF 'reversals' reversed?
    How many athletes were involved - 57? or did athletes return more than 1 AAF?
    How many AAFs per yer? Consistent, increasing or declining?

    All 27 were Chris Froome

    I'll leave you to reflect on the implications of that for yourself. :lol:
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!

Categories