Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

shirley_basso

Oh no. It’s like the anti Sky brigade are being trolled by Sky without them even trying. Glorious to watch them flounder in the face of acquittal by the powers that be.

tangled_metal

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I like the way a poster critical of sky and Froome says they're looking out considering the facts, then go on to mention disputed situations like jiffy bag, lost medical records, so called dodgy doctor, Wiggins TUE, etc. Are those actually facts or situations that can not be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, but the authorities have closed the case anyway? Not facts IMHO.

Unless I'm mistaken there's no facts proving Froome and / or Sky has created or doped. Stating there's facts then giving a list of unsubstantiated events that authorities have closed the case on isn't moving the discussion on. It's re-hashing ground that's been cleared. No facts or Froome / Sky would be in the Dock over them.

I wonder if someone has a good definition of what the word fact means. Enlighten people with a simple explanation of what facts are. Perhaps explain how the cycling and anti doping authorities conduct business on investigating and deciding on doping cases. I think some people need schooling on it. I genuinely do. Education is the only way out of ignorance.

Well heres some education for you.

there was a jiffy bag, its contents were not established, the doctor couldnt make the hearing, the doctor lost his notes and there was no back up, impossible to prove it was doping. by the same token impossible to prove it wasnt.

Which of those established facts are not actually facts in whatever lala world you live in?

Suspicion does not equal facts.

Am I missing something subtle in what you're saying? If I understand you right you seem to be saying unanswered questions about what was in a jiffy bag delivered to Wiggins is enough cause to suspect doping. That's tenuous. The doctor recalls it as a certain drug but you haven't got the jiffy bag and contents so was it even the bag of drugs the doctor had sent out? Could it be a packet of battery powered have fans he ordered from ebay to give a facetious example. Basically the only fact there is a jiffy bag was sent and received. Questions about content, which is the most critical aspect of it, have no facts to answer them with. Without that there isn't a case to answer only about sloppy procedures.

It's this use of facts I can't accept. Sorry, it should be FACTS! In capitals to make it even more true.

It's often the case those with the weakest case use FACTS in their posts to emphasise the little they have to back their opinions.

Vino you seem a bright guy. You're in debate with RC and not getting rings run round you. Can I suggest you try for some credibility by stop harping on about FACTS and start presenting evidence. Afterall the world of quasi - legal anti doping is based on evidence. Without it your opinion won't amount to a hill of beans.

Vino'sGhost

Tangled Metal wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I like the way a poster critical of sky and Froome says they're looking out considering the facts, then go on to mention disputed situations like jiffy bag, lost medical records, so called dodgy doctor, Wiggins TUE, etc. Are those actually facts or situations that can not be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, but the authorities have closed the case anyway? Not facts IMHO.

Unless I'm mistaken there's no facts proving Froome and / or Sky has created or doped. Stating there's facts then giving a list of unsubstantiated events that authorities have closed the case on isn't moving the discussion on. It's re-hashing ground that's been cleared. No facts or Froome / Sky would be in the Dock over them.

I wonder if someone has a good definition of what the word fact means. Enlighten people with a simple explanation of what facts are. Perhaps explain how the cycling and anti doping authorities conduct business on investigating and deciding on doping cases. I think some people need schooling on it. I genuinely do. Education is the only way out of ignorance.

Well heres some education for you.

there was a jiffy bag, its contents were not established, the doctor couldnt make the hearing, the doctor lost his notes and there was no back up, impossible to prove it was doping. by the same token impossible to prove it wasnt.

Which of those established facts are not actually facts in whatever lala world you live in?

Suspicion does not equal facts.

Am I missing something subtle in what you're saying? If I understand you right you seem to be saying unanswered questions about what was in a jiffy bag delivered to Wiggins is enough cause to suspect doping. That's tenuous. The doctor recalls it as a certain drug but you haven't got the jiffy bag and contents so was it even the bag of drugs the doctor had sent out? Could it be a packet of battery powered have fans he ordered from ebay to give a facetious example. Basically the only fact there is a jiffy bag was sent and received. Questions about content, which is the most critical aspect of it, have no facts to answer them with. Without that there isn't a case to answer only about sloppy procedures.

It's this use of facts I can't accept. Sorry, it should be FACTS! In capitals to make it even more true.

It's often the case those with the weakest case use FACTS in their posts to emphasise the little they have to back their opinions.

Vino you seem a bright guy. You're in debate with RC and not getting rings run round you. Can I suggest you try for some credibility by stop harping on about FACTS and start presenting evidence. Afterall the world of quasi - legal anti doping is based on evidence. Without it your opinion won't amount to a hill of beans.

well I'll bring you back to the point i was making a few pages ago (in summary)

1Other than his AAF procedure (and its a fact that that took place) there's nothing to suggest he's cheating. But i wouldn't be surprised if he was. in part because of his association with Sky see below and in part because he's a multi GT winning cyclist. (apologies to Cadel)

2 Given the seemingly endless controversy surrounding Sky I suspect that somethings not right there. Depending on the view of the observer naive or cynical Sky has benefited from the inability to answer the questions that might have caused them problems or cleared things up. missing laptops, poorly doctors, lax record keeping all contributed to lack of detail but not lack of facts. One might view it as an unfortunate lapse of record keeping and bad luck or alternately as convenient.

Precisely how much evidence does one need to have to have a reasonable suspicion that something dodgy might be happening at Sky?

more interestingly what does this say about the people who are demanding "fact after fact" to prove their man/team is clean.

on one hand Id say Sky is having a PR nightmare, on the other given the level of religious fervour and support they have in some quarters Id say it was amazing. But then people have different views, eg some people think Trumps great too.

Heres an example "Froome never had an AA WADA says so and thats a fact"

so none of it ever happened. Personally I'd have loved to see what all the reasons for them not bringing this to CAS were.

bompington

It always grinds my gears when the clinic lobby go on about the "seemingly endless controversy surrounding Sky" as if this is evidence in itself. It's not, it's just evidence that doping fans will never stop shouting about it.
It's a kind of perpetual motion machine - the seemingly endless controversy is generated by the doping fans, who believe there must be something to it because there's a seemingly endless controversy, which makes the doping fans shout, which keeps the controversy going, which...

kingstongraham

The seemingly endless controversy around Sky and the jiffy bag seems to boil down to whether Wiggins had an injection on the day of a race after he had already finished, or on a subsequent day when it would not be a violation. Even if it's ever proved that it was on the same day, and was a doping violation, it's not really worth all this, is it?

And at the moment, there's no proof of even that.

tangled_metal

My point is you can't take your FACTS as having value you need evidence to prove guilt. It's guilt you need to prove to be able to say a party has done wrong. Suspicions are worthless.

What those accusing Sky of whatever doping infraction it is they think Sky has done are doing is using the suspicions of like minded people to confirm their own suspicions.

WADA & UCI have sufficient resources to investigate any claims presented. If they can be proven Sky / Froome / Wiggins will face sanction. It hasn't happened despite all the FACTS that get bandied around. Innuendo doesn't cut it unless you're using the opinion of like minded people as FACT.

Then throw in a few names like Sky/Froome fan boy, accusations that people aren't looking at the whole picture, etc. Sooner or later you'll self confirm their guilt. It's a form of delusion I suspect. At least it's harmless fun for vino. Not sure all can say the same thing if you consider urine and punches being thrown around in previous tours.

I wonder if forums should moderate such threads to reduce the fervour of anti-Sky or Froome sentiment. Or twitter taking down tweets, etc. It's censorship and I don't like it but there's a lot of bad negativity towards Froome and Sky.

RichN95.

bompington wrote:

It always grinds my gears when the clinic lobby go on about the "seemingly endless controversy surrounding Sky" as if this is evidence in itself. It's not, it's just evidence that doping fans will never stop shouting about it.
It's a kind of perpetual motion machine - the seemingly endless controversy is generated by the doping fans, who believe there must be something to it because there's a seemingly endless controversy, which makes the doping fans shout, which keeps the controversy going, which...

Precisely. The jiffy bag stuff was back in 2011. Since then AG2R have hand three riders banned (two for EPO) but no-one said they had 'endless controversy' as it doesn't serve an audience.

Vino'sGhost

perfect examples instantly given to demonstrate my point.

and the "yeah but what about...." that children use to get out of trouble is priceless too

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

perfect examples instantly given to demonstrate my point.

and the "yeah but what about...." that children use to get out of trouble is priceless too

Yeah you can’t win your argument in context so you’re desperately trying to keep the context out.

larkim

In the end doesn't it just come down to:-
"I have my suspicions about XYZ"
vs
"I believe XYZ are likely to be clean"

And whether you're in one camp or another is just gut feel? We can all dress it up with evidence, but fundamentally we're all unlikely to be fully satisfied one way or another.

rick_chasey

larkim wrote:

In the end doesn't it just come down to:-
"I have my suspicions about XYZ"
vs
"I believe XYZ are likely to be clean"

And whether you're in one camp or another is just gut feel? We can all dress it up with evidence, but fundamentally we're all unlikely to be fully satisfied one way or another.

There's a difference between 'i believe x is clean' and 'you can't substantiate your suggestion that x is doping'.

It's not a binary argument.

bobmcstuff

The "ongoing controversy" is largely manufactured by the press and Twitter, let's be honest.

mattsaw

You can find 'controversy' about almost any team that you care to mention.

Katusha for example,

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/katusha ... ing-cases/
http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/1 ... drugs-test
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ion-205205

They're even sponsored by a shampoo which has a drug in it :O

Sky are massively under the spotlight due to their success and their arrogance which has rubbed many people up the wrong way. They seemingly have a group of ex-Postal fanboys following the drama desperate for some kind of online vindication.

FWIW I think cycling is heavily under the doping spotlight. Riders are tested more in and out of competition than any other sport.

Does that mean it's clean? - obviously not
Does that mean riders don't push the rules as far as they can - certainly.

But as a sport I'm confident that we are cleaner than most. That's good, but it's obviously not perfect.

Drug cheats need to be hounded out of the sport, for example I would encourage much stricter bans and financial penalties for caught and convicted cheats.

That needs to be evidence based though. Otherwise we're into Salem and McCarthyist witch-hunts based on people's feelings and various vested interests both in the peloton and on social media.

Both the intelligent sceptic and the conspiracy theorist start from a similar place.

Intelligent sceptics know that hypotheses cannot be sustained indefinitely without evidence. They eventually have to be positively backed up by concrete proof or else abandoned.

Conspiracy theorists sees cover-ups everywhere; their default position is that everyone must be a liar, fear of being 'taken in' is s so great, there can be no glimmer of trust.

We do need to move beyond the people who feel cheated by the LA years who simply can't move on and want to turn the sport into a soap opera.

Wheelspinner

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

It always grinds my gears when the clinic lobby go on about the "seemingly endless controversy surrounding Sky" as if this is evidence in itself. It's not, it's just evidence that doping fans will never stop shouting about it.
It's a kind of perpetual motion machine - the seemingly endless controversy is generated by the doping fans, who believe there must be something to it because there's a seemingly endless controversy, which makes the doping fans shout, which keeps the controversy going, which...

Precisely. The jiffy bag stuff was back in 2011. Since then AG2R have hand three riders banned (two for EPO) but no-one said they had 'endless controversy' as it doesn't serve an audience.

Controversy may not be the right word, but perhaps one reason for the perceived lack of conjecture about, say, Ag2R is that they really did get busted. Not much to speculate about, is there?

larkim

Rick Chasey wrote:

larkim wrote:

In the end doesn't it just come down to:-
"I have my suspicions about XYZ"
vs
"I believe XYZ are likely to be clean"

And whether you're in one camp or another is just gut feel? We can all dress it up with evidence, but fundamentally we're all unlikely to be fully satisfied one way or another.

There's a difference between 'i believe x is clean' and 'you can't substantiate your suggestion that x is doping'.

It's not a binary argument.

That's when you get into the argument and seeking to get evidence for one position or another. I'm talking about the starting point.

My starting point is that all riders are clean. Give me evidence that substantiates that individuals are not and I'll accept it. Give me circumstantial evidence that is less than compelling and I'll say so, advocating for a position that sets out how they could still be clean.

Vino has said that he has suspicions about Froome / Sky. Fair enough. It's unlikely that there will be sufficient evidence to substantiate cleanliness to Vino, so he will continue to post coming at it from that side of the preconceptions.

Those who have no preconceptions probably don't post anything!

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

larkim wrote:

In the end doesn't it just come down to:-
"I have my suspicions about XYZ"
vs
"I believe XYZ are likely to be clean"

And whether you're in one camp or another is just gut feel? We can all dress it up with evidence, but fundamentally we're all unlikely to be fully satisfied one way or another.

There's a difference between 'i believe x is clean' and 'you can't substantiate your suggestion that x is doping'.

It's not a binary argument.

That's when you get into the argument and seeking to get evidence for one position or another. I'm talking about the starting point.

My starting point is that all riders are clean. Give me evidence that substantiates that individuals are not and I'll accept it. Give me circumstantial evidence that is less than compelling and I'll say so, advocating for a position that sets out how they could still be clean.

Vino has said that he has suspicions about Froome / Sky. Fair enough. It's unlikely that there will be sufficient evidence to substantiate cleanliness to Vino, so he will continue to post coming at it from that side of the preconceptions.

Those who have no preconceptions probably don't post anything!

good post.

FocusZing

I hate seeing this stupid thread keep popping to the top like road rash.

tangled_metal

I start from the position that I don't know if someone or some team is doping or cheating. I need to see a "conviction" if you like to know for sure. However yay doesn't mean I am the opposite of the side so start with the suspicions.

What was that Cheny quote? There are known knowns, there are unknown knowns and...

I think there are things we don't know and what they are we should wait until we know what they are not guess. For me Froome or Sky doping is one thing we don't know. It's how we follow up on that. Do we take a view without the evidence to know with confidence? Or do we move on and only take a view on something when we know through verifiable and trustworthy evidence?

I don't think this approach is taking one side of the other.

larkim

FocusZing wrote:

I hate seeing this stupid thread keep popping to the top like road rash.

Does road rash actually pop to the top?

FocusZing

larkim wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

I hate seeing this stupid thread keep popping to the top like road rash.

Does road rash actually pop to the top?

You know you shouldn't but you pick that scab.

jwa581

Wheelspinner wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

It always grinds my gears when the clinic lobby go on about the "seemingly endless controversy surrounding Sky" as if this is evidence in itself. It's not, it's just evidence that doping fans will never stop shouting about it.
It's a kind of perpetual motion machine - the seemingly endless controversy is generated by the doping fans, who believe there must be something to it because there's a seemingly endless controversy, which makes the doping fans shout, which keeps the controversy going, which...

Precisely. The jiffy bag stuff was back in 2011. Since then AG2R have hand three riders banned (two for EPO) but no-one said they had 'endless controversy' as it doesn't serve an audience.

Controversy may not be the right word, but perhaps one reason for the perceived lack of conjecture about, say, Ag2R is that they really did get busted. Not much to speculate about, is there?

Imagine the reaction if Sky had 2 positives for EPO in the last few years. It is highly likely that this would be seen as proof that Froome is on the gear and Twitter would be in meltdown. This same standard has not been applied to Bardet at AG2R. FWIW I don't believe that Bardet is cheating, but the point is that there does seem to be a different standard for Sky than other teams. I understand that they have brought a lot of this on themselves by the holier than thou zero tolerance policy and general arrogance etc, but really if we are being totally objective we should seperate Brailsford being a bit of a tool from the actual evidence.

ddraver

(Been saying this for years *grumble grumble*)

jwa581

ddraver wrote:

(Been saying this for years *grumble grumble*)

That's not to say that Sky should not be scrutinized, but so should all the other teams and riders, and this should be done objectively, i.e. looking at all available known facts and deciding on balance of probabilities/evidence whether a team or individual is clean or not. This position will change as new evidence comes to light. I admit that in 1999 I thought and was clean. By 2004 I thought it likely that he was (although I hoped not). Just because you don't spot immediately that there's is doping going on does not make you stupid and taking a position that they are all still at it and cherry picking and/or twisting evidence to fit this view is not really helpful to the dialogue on this. I think the landscape of the sport has changed dramatically in the last decade. Riders will generally adapt their behaviour to the prevailing conditions, i.e. in 1995, huge gains and low risk form doping so no suprise most teams and riders doped. Now I believe (hope I am right, but I could be wrong) the rewards are small, and the risks large, so most (not all) riders are hopefully clean. I think this borne out by the fact that 10 years ago we had high profile multiple positives for CERA etc and now we are getting excited about a ventolin inhaler! This is not to say we can relax or not be vigilant but I think things have got significantly better.

jwa581

Edit to above post: meant to say thought Lance was clean in 1999, but by 2004 thought he wasn't.

Bo Duke

Please... close this thread, we need to move on and find someone else to attack and hound out of racing.

Vino'sGhost

Bo Duke wrote:

Please... close this thread, we need to move on and find someone else to attack and hound out of racing.

Froome Dog isnt being hounded.

mattsaw

darkhairedlord

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Please... close this thread, we need to move on and find someone else to attack and hound out of racing.

Froome Dog isnt being hounded.

It's sad that the UCI and ASO have set up Sky and Froome as the pantomime villains to drum up publicity and interest.
A bit like the wrestling, where you have a villain and the crowd are encouraged to throw stuff; who remembers world of sport when old ladies used to hit Mick McMannus with their hand bags?

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

I'm quite baffled how anyone could read that document and have their confidence in the outcome confirmed.

tailwindhome

I hope someone will correct me here.
But is this quote from Froome not factually inaccurate?

"There are two phases: it goes to the explanation phase and then, after that, if that's not sufficient, then it goes to the pharmaceutical study. Mine stopped before it even went to that phase."