Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

Why what drugs are sky taking?

With Lance postal it was pretty obvious.

Was it obvious? I dont recall you listing products? I do recall you being pro lance for some time though.

however since this is the pro sky forum Ill break down whats written above so you can think about what ive said.

1 I dont suspect froome specifically of using ped. I hope he's not but i wouldnt be surprised if he were.

2 theres a cutlure at sky similar to Postal. Theres loads of similarities here, team performance, winning (in a different way to quickstep before you say and in anycase they have different objectives) finances, it goes on. That doesn't mean that there IS something going on but it DOES mean that the conditions are similar.

so ill ask you, WHY is it unfeasible that either Froome or Sky are using PED?

Please use Froome would never do that to his body when hes got Asthama.

As far as I was concerned, I couldn't have liked Lance less when he was riding. Was very happy to see him retire. I just have a bit of perspective

.

I was also convinced at the time that, like everyone else who was caught, he must have been on the same stuff; everyone else was being busted for it, and it was making a huge performance difference, so why wouldn't he be on it?

Anyway.

To answer your points:

1) either he's doping or he's not. If he is, what he's taking is entirely relevant, as some drugs impact performance much more than others.

2) winning GTs with same tactics doesn't really tell us anything. After all, USP were, towards the end, the biggest budget team, rather like Sky. That's not to do with doping, that's to do with the most effective tactic to win GTs.

If your best shot at accusing sky doping is that they win GTs a lot, then you need to go back and come back with some better evidence.

Currently there aren't enough positives in the peloton to really know what PEDs people are using, and therefore, working out which are race changing, and which are placebos.[/quote

Why does someone take a placebo? Think about it. And you still haven’t addressed the question why it’s not possible they’re cheating? Prove a negative is t an answer, the truth is the conditions opportunity and reason to cheat are all there.

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

This is stupid, the us postal riders Wernt getting busted whilst on the team. It mostly happened after they’d left.

rick_chasey · July 2018

I'm not disputing that there is a chance people are doping.

But that's about as useful as saying people could be paedophiles.

They could be, but what evidence is there that they ARE.

slim_boy_fat · July 2018

This is brilliant. There is a chance that Sky are doping so I'm going to say they are! Is that it, is that the crux of the tinfoil hat brigades argument? Comedy gold right there!

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

This is brilliant. There is a chance that Sky are doping so I'm going to say they are! Is that it, is that the crux of the tinfoil hat brigades argument? Comedy gold right there!

have i said that? i suspect you're so far in the leap to the defence of sky club that you haven't taken time to read what i've written.

but lets face it, sky and the TUE / missing records / jiffybag / doesn't entirely bathe them in glory does it.

bobmcstuff · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

This is stupid, the us postal riders Wernt getting busted whilst on the team. It mostly happened after they’d left.

Plenty of Sky riders have left Sky.

I think it's pretty conclusive that Sky have pushed the limits regarding tramadol, arguably kenacort, and presumably other similar areas. But I'm not sure there's anything to support the accusations of wide-spread doping, as far as I have seen.

mattsaw · July 2018

There was plenty of actual testimony against Armstrong well before any failed tests.

Steve Swart went public in 2004 for example, Andreu in 06 and then many others shortly after. Even an aggressive litigator like Armstrong couldn't keep people quiet.

Where are the claims from people involved from Sky? I would expect someone to have leaked something. Yates? JTL? Barry? Sutton? Where are the smoking guns?

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

Mattsaw wrote:

There was plenty of actual testimony against Armstrong well before any failed tests.

Steve Swart went public in 2004 for example, Andreu in 06 and then many others shortly after. Even an aggressive litigator like Armstrong couldn't keep people quiet.

Where are the claims from people involved from Sky? I would expect someone to have leaked something. Yates? JTL? Barry? Sutton? Where are the smoking guns?

smoking guns? Jiffy bags lost records, questionable TUEs

as for Armstrong hed failed tests for saddle sore cream and in one case had a back dated TUE . But that wasnt widely known at the time.

slim_boy_fat · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

This is brilliant. There is a chance that Sky are doping so I'm going to say they are! Is that it, is that the crux of the tinfoil hat brigades argument? Comedy gold right there!

have i said that? i suspect you're so far in the leap to the defence of sky club that you haven't taken time to read what i've written.

but lets face it, sky and the TUE / missing records / jiffybag / doesn't entirely bathe them in glory does it.

I've got absolutely no idea if Sky are doping or not, they could be shooting up every night for all I know. However, until I see some clear evidence they are I'm not going to cry foul. And I'm not defending Sky just ridiculing the stupidity of the arguments they are.

bobmcstuff · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

There was plenty of actual testimony against Armstrong well before any failed tests.

Steve Swart went public in 2004 for example, Andreu in 06 and then many others shortly after. Even an aggressive litigator like Armstrong couldn't keep people quiet.

Where are the claims from people involved from Sky? I would expect someone to have leaked something. Yates? JTL? Barry? Sutton? Where are the smoking guns?

smoking guns? Jiffy bags lost records, questionable TUEs

as for Armstrong hed failed tests for saddle sore cream and in one case had a back dated TUE . But that wasnt widely known at the time.

Armstrong also had the hospital bed confession etc.. Plus as you mentioned already, ex-USPS riders getting busted in pretty short order.

fenix · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

This is stupid, the us postal riders Wernt getting busted whilst on the team. It mostly happened after they’d left.

Durrr - that's why i mentioned EX USPS riders. We know they weren't getting busted on the team.

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

This is stupid, the us postal riders Wernt getting busted whilst on the team. It mostly happened after they’d left.

Durrr - that's why i mentioned EX USPS riders. We know they weren't getting busted on the team.

And yet here i am saying i hope froome isnt dirty and that somethings not right with Team Sky and getting attacked for lack of evidence by people who claim theyre clean.

I know my hope that froome is clean is a much more balanced comment than claims that sky and froome ARE clean.

haydenm · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

This is stupid, the us postal riders Wernt getting busted whilst on the team. It mostly happened after they’d left.

Durrr - that's why i mentioned EX USPS riders. We know they weren't getting busted on the team.

And yet here i am saying i hope froome isnt dirty and that somethings not right with Team Sky and getting attacked for lack of evidence by people who claim theyre clean.

I know my hope that froome is clean is a much more balanced comment than claims that sky and froome ARE clean.

No, you're getting attacked for agreeing with someone who was saying Sky are the same as US Postal and are probably doping. Luckily you don't need proof to say the team are clean, you need proof to say they aren't and there isn't any.

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

HaydenM wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

This

That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

This is stupid, the us postal riders Wernt getting busted whilst on the team. It mostly happened after they’d left.

Durrr - that's why i mentioned EX USPS riders. We know they weren't getting busted on the team.

And yet here i am saying i hope froome isnt dirty and that somethings not right with Team Sky and getting attacked for lack of evidence by people who claim theyre clean.

I know my hope that froome is clean is a much more balanced comment than claims that sky and froome ARE clean.

No, you're getting attacked for agreeing with someone who was saying Sky are the same as US Postal and are probably doping. Luckily you don't need proof to say the team are clean, you need proof to say they aren't and there isn't any.

well thats just not true is it? Kenacort, dodgy TUE, all the other stuff. You might choose to ignore those but theyre there. theres plenty of evidence. Even Froomes AAF conclusion doesnt say he hadnt taken too much, merely that there was no way he could prove that he hadnt.

haydenm · July 2018

None of which are proof of doping...?

The mood is they are all on EPO because he took too much of his inhaler and you don't like the feel of the team. If they get caught for doping then I'd happily see them banned for life, but I'd like to think the way LA got away with it just isn't an avenue anymore. I don't think 'flying close to the rules' with regards to permitted drugs is comparable to full scale doping

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

HaydenM wrote:

None of which are proof of doping...?

The mood is they are all on EPO because he took too much of his inhaler and you don't like the feel of the team. If they get caught for doping then I'd happily see them banned for life, but I'd like to think the way LA got away with it just isn't an avenue anymore. I don't think 'flying close to the rules' with regards to permitted drugs is comparable to full scale doping

but the point of this conversation was that the culture at team sky means that we shouldn't be surprised if they are.

this isnt an accusation of doping but does acknowledge the stuff thats happening / happened. there are dual standards at work here.

FocusZing · July 2018

I had a hayfever tablet this morning and I feel all drowsy n stuff.

RichN95. · July 2018

If, after eights seasons of podium finishes, your best bit of evidence against Froome is TUEs given to a different rider when Froome's TUEs were leaked themselves, then it's pretty weak.

carbonclem · July 2018

Mattsaw wrote:

JTL? Sutton?

Those two alone seem to have big enough axes to grind to make whistleblowing an attractive option.

I would imagine the income stream from proving the full program at Team Sky (if it exists) would be enough to counter any NDA that was in place. Its been said before, there are plenty of riders who have been dropped from the team who are likely miffed with Sky and undoubtedly many many staff that we just don't know about. Wheres the gossip?

mattsaw · July 2018

CarbonClem wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

JTL? Sutton?

Those two alone seem to have big enough axes to grind to make whistleblowing an attractive option.

I would imagine the income stream from proving the full program at Team Sky (if it exists) would be enough to counter any NDA that was in place. Its been said before, there are plenty of riders who have been dropped from the team who are likely miffed with Sky and undoubtedly many many staff that we just don't know about. Wheres the gossip?

That's exactly my train of thought on it.

Imagine that you're JTL, failing to return to competition after your ban, bitter at Sky for binning him off and having nothing more to do with them.

Imagine the money that he could make from exclusive interviews, newspapers, book deals on blowing the whole Sky charade wide open.

It would make the Lance interviews look like pocket change.

Same goes for several others with genuine grievances, and countless others who would have to have been in on it who are passing up the opportunity to make themselves a small fortune.

Weird

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

RichN95 wrote:

If, after eights seasons of podium finishes, your best bit of evidence against Froome is TUEs given to a different rider when Froome's TUEs were leaked themselves, then it's pretty weak.

lol only if you think environment is irrelevant.

only if you think his AAF is irrelevant

btw the AAF didnt progress to a anti doping sanction because he couldnt reproduce his results, not because there was no evidence or because they thought he was innocent.

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

just to re enforce my original point, i wasnt saying that he is doping just that i wouldnt be surprised if he was.

I wasnt sayiing that Sky are at it just that it wouldnt surprise me if they were (given the circumstances and history)

There is another thing that would stop me being surprised and thats that Froome is a multi tour winning cyclist. and theres only been one other of those thats not got a whiff about him. and Team sky are a pro cycling team.

bobmcstuff · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

If, after eights seasons of podium finishes, your best bit of evidence against Froome is TUEs given to a different rider when Froome's TUEs were leaked themselves, then it's pretty weak.

lol only if you think environment is irrelevant.

only if you think his AAF is irrelevant

btw the AAF didnt progress to a anti doping sanction because he couldnt reproduce his results, not because there was no evidence or because they thought he was innocent.

I thought not being able to reproduce the results was exactly the thing that was supposed to lead to doping case?

iainf72 · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

If, after eights seasons of podium finishes, your best bit of evidence against Froome is TUEs given to a different rider when Froome's TUEs were leaked themselves, then it's pretty weak.

lol only if you think environment is irrelevant.

only if you think his AAF is irrelevant

btw the AAF didnt progress to a anti doping sanction because he couldnt reproduce his results, not because there was no evidence or because they thought he was innocent.

It would have to progress to an anti-doping rule violation before it could result in a sanction.

Interesting analysis there, pity it's not what the statements say. Froome and team provided sufficient evidence that WADA scientists could not feel confident saying he'd inhaled more than the allowed amount of salbutamol. Therefore no anti-doping case was opened. THat's what we know. We know there was a bunch of tests which supported some of that, plus some experts.

iainf72 · July 2018

We really could do with a cycling version of Steven Pinkers "Enlightenment Now".

tailwindhome · July 2018

iainf72 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

If, after eights seasons of podium finishes, your best bit of evidence against Froome is TUEs given to a different rider when Froome's TUEs were leaked themselves, then it's pretty weak.

lol only if you think environment is irrelevant.

only if you think his AAF is irrelevant

btw the AAF didnt progress to a anti doping sanction because he couldnt reproduce his results, not because there was no evidence or because they thought he was innocent.

It would have to progress to an anti-doping rule violation before it could result in a sanction.

Interesting analysis there, pity it's not what the statements say. Froome and team provided sufficient evidence that WADA scientists could not feel confident saying he'd inhaled more than the allowed amount of salbutamol. Therefore no anti-doping case was opened. THat's what we know. We know there was a bunch of tests which supported some of that, plus some experts.

I'm not sure everyone gets that.

We've clocked you at 140mph, but we can't prove what speed you were doing

RichN95. · July 2018

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure everyone gets that.

We've clocked you at 140mph, but we can't prove what speed you were doing

More like we've clocked you at 140mph but the speed gun is broken so have no idea what it really was.

orraloon · July 2018

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure everyone gets that.

We've clocked you at 140mph, but we can't prove what speed you were doing

More like we've clocked you at 140mph but the speed gun is broken so have no idea what it really was.

The speed gun says 140 but the guy who invented it doesn't believe it gives the correct information.

inseine · July 2018

Vino'sGhost wrote:

just to re enforce my original point, i wasnt saying that he is doping just that i wouldnt be surprised if he was.

I wasnt sayiing that Sky are at it just that it wouldnt surprise me if they were (given the circumstances and history)

There is another thing that would stop me being surprised and thats that Froome is a multi tour winning cyclist. and theres only been one other of those thats not got a whiff about him. and Team sky are a pro cycling team.

There’s a lot of sitting on the fence there. Seems you want to be right either way and in the meantime just stir the s**t.
I also find the accusation that people are ´Froome fans’ very strange. I’m a cycling fan so I basically like all cyclists unless they do something that makes me think otherwise. Froome hasn’t done that yet.
I suppose there’s no chance we can all just get on and enjoy the racing?

Vino'sGhost · July 2018

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure everyone gets that.

We've clocked you at 140mph, but we can't prove what speed you were doing

More like we've clocked you at 140mph but the speed gun is broken so have no idea what it really was.

or weve clocked you at 140mph, your enourmous team have come up with a hypothetical situation that is specific to you because of your unusual paint which has now been washed off and since it would be impossible to get preciseley the same temperature sun position and pollen content in the air to prove your theory were going to let you off because it would be

A, unfair if theres even the slightest possibility that possibly maybe in another reality their is an infintesimally small chance test is wrong. Wed normally ask you to repeat the conditions to prove your outlandish theory but it's just not possible for you.

B, we just cant afford financially to test this through to the end and anyway everyone will then know how to deal with us.

you got away with it son.

Sorry, we thogught long and hard but it was going to get far too messy what with ASo calling our bluff and the lawyers circling.

Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

Comments

Categories