ringo182 wrote:


I think every team in the professional peloton has some form of black mark against them historically in terms of doping/drug use, not just Sky. No team is 100% clean.

Also:

Jiffy Bag - No Evidence, case dismissed.
Henao - Suspended by Sky as part of team policy, no formal suspension given
Tiernan-Locke - Failed drug test before joining Sky
Leinders - Banned for activity prior to Joining Sky

ringo182 wrote:
I was just pointing out that you can real of a list of previous misdemeanours for all professional teams. All teams have doctors/riders/staff who have been implemented in doping in the past.

It isn't proof of wrong doing in the present.

I just think the current issue, for which there is evidence, should be treated in isolation from past issues, for which there is sketchy/no evidence.

ryant wrote:


By no evidence, you mean evidence which was conveniently "lost"

Stop being deluded

ringo182 wrote:


How there came to be no evidence is neither here nor there. The top investigative journalists and governing bodies investigated and found no evidence.

I don't see how I'm being deluded. I'm simply saying Froome has failed a drugs test which is being investigated and will likely result in some form of ban/sanction. That is the Issue.

Stop going on about stuff in the past for which there is no evidence. You could real off a list of circumstantial evidence for every team in professional cycling. It has nothing to do with the failed test.

ryant wrote:


There was no evidence found as the team doctor somehow lost a laptop with all the information regarding the jiffy bag while on holiday in Greece...

Not suspicious at all is it?

Go bury your head in the sand again

boork wrote:
If it matters or not depends on how you look at it. Our personal beliefs of what is happening certainly takes all accounts into consideration. We know that they cheat, even if we can not prove it.

Then there is the matter of the law. It is good that we have laws, and that they demand proof in order for the law to label someone guilty. They do not decide how people feel though, and it is silly to use the letter of the law, to try and tell people how they feel.

What decides if someone have commited an act? Certainly that must be the act itself, and not the law.

If we always saw someone as not guilty until a judgement of law have been cast, then there would never be any investigations. Certainly that would not work, and hence we must be able to personally judge people outside of the law, when we feel it is right to do so.

In the eyes of the public, Froome and Sky are guilty of many things. In the eye of the law, they are yet seen as not guilty.

Ollfardh wrote:


So Harvey Weinstein is not guilty either? I would even go further and claim Osama Bin Laden was innocent as well, since he never got a trial.

ivaneurope wrote:


And the yanks are not guilty for attrocities made in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Not to get even further in occupied Germany, Japan and Korea.

The situation is getting out of hand. Please, stick to the topic.

Guido Mukk wrote:
And come on ..UCI!
What a fucking explanation you are waiting now? A and B samples positive , ban him like you usually did have done. Why fucking double standards?

ps. if someone will see Arenberg..tell him.. No..better not. I would like to tell him that personally.

Gustavovskiy wrote:
The point being: there never was any evidence. There only was a lot of suspicion. Until now. Now we have evidence on top of a lot of suspicious cases. It's just a matter of interpretation.

Try looking at this the other way around, ringo. Instead of dismissing Froome's positive as an isolated case because there was no evidence before, try to wonder if this event doesn't make the previous ones much more logical with this reasoning.