Doping

Froome has had a TUE for steroids, at least one. He won Romandie with one.

Wasn't referring to the salbutamol.

The thing is, you either accept that WADA and the UCI are doing their jobs and accept the decisions they make, or you don’t. If you choose the latter then you need to produce evidence to back up your claims, because without it you can’t prove anything. Citing times up climbs or calling foul based on what you are watching on tv coverage is not evidence.

Those who believe Froome is a massive doper, part of a conspiracy set up by Dave Brailsford and protected by the UCI under Brian Cookson, will reject today’s decision. But their beliefs are based on nothing, just irrationality that they can’t believe one bike racer can be stronger than his rivals.

Froome has had two TUEs in his career, both for prednisolone, an asthma drug.

Presumably it is so effective that he only needs to take it infrequently to turn him into the dominant stage race rider of his era.

You can't dismiss all of it as irrationality unless you ignore the fact that Sky's own actions and PR happenings have greatly contributed to the dialogue around their performances and the wider disbelief that they operate above board.

Freeman's managed to transform himself into the Wallace and Gromit of doping through accidental orders of steroid patches and losing his laptop-for him to refuse to appear in front of a committee and then roll out a book about how great he is is fucking surreal.

A dog I look after takes that. Should I be smashing it back instead and winning GT's?

I'd be taking my dog down the races instead and sticking a few quid on it

Only the gullible believed Sky’s bullshit about being different to other teams and doing things the right way. They showed their true colours when they hired the likes of Scott Sunderland, Sean Yates and Brian Nygard. It’s clear they exploit the grey areas in the rules, and have taken advantage of the growing medicalisation of the sport. But what they do is within the rules of the sport as far as we can tell.

Your stance on this is alternately to dismiss critics of Sky or disbelievers as irrational and unsubstantiated, yet when pointed out it's based on very real events such as 'accidental' steroid patch orders or hiring ex dopers you flip and instead dismiss anyone who believed they were operating true to their word by pointing to the exact same happenings.

But what they do is within the rules of the sport as far as we can tell.

Yes, as far as we can tell, and supported by quite a few disclosures now, Sky can be seen to be doing more than exploiting grey areas and it's not irrational or illogical to think so. Getting TUEs for riders who don't require them is cheating. Are you telling me you believe Wiggo needed cortisone injections? If so you're the gullible one.

It’s professional sport, there are grey areas and teams exploit them. If you don’t like it, walk away.

Applying for a TUE is not cheating, the UCI have to approve it. I don’t think Wiggins cheated, clearly I wasn’t there, but I think they realised they could eliminate his allergy issues with one injection before his major objective of the year, applied for it and had it granted. As so many teams and riders were exploiting this grey area the UCI sought to close it down. That’s how the sport works. Look at Lotto-Soudal and their aero gel at the Dauphine, they saw a grey area to exploit and tried it. The UCI closed that loophole too.

Fundamentally disagree with the "if you don't accept WADA and the UCI are doing their jobs, you need to provide evidence" (otherwise you're an irrational bandwagonner) statement

Time and time again WADA and the UCI have proved they're incapable of catching and prosecuting dopers, multiple doctors and testers have all echoed this sentiment, if you're saying those that believe we should now trust them despite years of incompetence just because we can't provide evidence of doing it this time, well.... who sounds irrational now?

Sky have continually lied, and wormed their way out of sticky situations, remember that Henao study? Well that funnily enough hasn't appeared. Records for the infamous jiffy bag? funnily enough never appeared.

Honestly, I find it fucking laughable that anyone who thinks WADA and the UCI are doing their jobs IS rational.

If you don’t like it, walk away.

Or? Should all the MPCC teams walk away too? They don't like it either? Lets ring them up and tell them AndyP from lufguss thinks they should all fuck off.

Applying for a TUE is not cheating

Uhm. It is if the athlete/team are purposely using it to gain advantage instead of treat a legitimate health problem. With Freeman's performance and the findings of the committee, you're saying that was all above board and fine and dandy? If so you're in the minority-it stinks.

Comparing steroids to aero gel is not exactly comparable, one is designated as a controlled substance, another an as yet undefined technical matter. Sky still adorn themselves in whatever aero vetements they can conjure up, don't they?

Why not respond to what I posted before, which is that your stance on this is entirely inconsistent and changes depending on what aspect of it you want to dismiss.

Walk away then. It’s only sport, it’s not important.

The UCI have been at the vanguard of anti-doping, the biological passport was a game changer in fighting doping. Anne Gripper fought long and hard to get that past internal opposition and WADA indifference.

The sport has changed because of it, and for the better. Long gone are the outrageous dopers who effectively laughed in the faces of the authorities, today the sport is far, far cleaner. Of course it’s not perfect, and there are teams, including Sky, who exploit the grey areas around what is medical need and what is performance enhancing.

But the days of police raids and dodgy doctors are gone.

But the days of police raids and dodgy doctors are gone.

https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2018/04/11/grigory-rodchenkov-biathlon-police-raid-doping/

Nah, just changed sports :)

The days of putting aside strict liability are here

I am happy to accept that Froome is the genetic outlier he seems to be. Vaughters described him as having crazy adaptive physiology when he was thinking about taking him off Sky pre-2011 Veulta. One of Froome's big issues with many is he never raced the junior European ranks, and when he did race in Europe he was shit. Then he wasn't.

The scary thing about him had he not been riding for Wiggins he would have won that Veulta, and the TdF in 2012 since he was clearly the best racer in both, so he should have 2 more GTs on his palmares. That would make 9 wins now and he just gone and won 3 GTs in a row. I mean he one of the greatest riders of all time.

And he is just getting stronger. His Giro win was in-fucking-sane. So you either put his greatness down to doping, or down to the fact he is a mutant, a genetic marvel. And whatever else you say about Froome his mental fortitude is incredible. One thing is certain: salbuturol has nothing to do with it any of it, and if the testing improves because of it I am all for it.

Hoping he doesn't get the crap beaten out of him in the mountains.

One thing is certain: salbuturol has nothing to do with it

I think we can all agree with that. Salbutamol, on the other hand...

That first bit, I can agree with. I'll still watch and enjoy sport, but I have fully checked out when it comes to believing it's credibility.

I'll also agree with the fact that testing has come on leaps and bounds, but I honestly believe that Sky are far worse than any of their competitors, and utilise a much more systematic approach to doping, or as you put it, taking advantage of the grey areas.

Yeah I couldn't remember, auto-fill wasn't helpful and I couldn't be arsed to look it up

Ok pro cycling, you have now lost one major fan. I'll work until the end of the season or my birthday in September, then I am out of here.

Tweeted by Susan Westemeyer. Hopefully taking cyclingnews with her.

The hand-wringing poor-me tweets over this TdF have been hilarious. So many 'I used to look forward to July but now it is ruined and so is the sport'.

Every big name in cycling ever has some sort of doping related taint, yet for some reason they all ok but Froome isn't.

According to her Cyclingnews profile, she was inspired by Bjarne Riis and Jan Ullrich to cover cycling. Maybe she would be happy covering a cleaner cycling continent, like South America for example....

Yeah the double-think is impressive. Everything else in cycling has been ok, going back all those years and her heroes are all dopers, but this is the one unacceptable thing. The hyperbole is laughable.

Every big name in cycling ever has some sort of doping related taint, yet for some reason they all ok but Froome isn't

That's because they all actually doped, in a Faustian pact because winning without doping was, for them, impossible. Froome wins without doping, which just annoys people (especially journos) because there's no mythological narrative to pontificate about.

1 Attachment

I'm looking more forward to the TdF than before now that this come out. There is going to be drama no doubt.

And how can she not decide when she will watch it till? Just wants a bit of attention and may as well fuck off now.

Well I was under the impression cyclingnews was her website, so she likely can't just upsticks and disappear with Vayer into the sunset.

The forums there are appalling and harbour the worst of the doping trolls, and the administrators, of which she was top one, are complicit in that.