|
News in January
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 08:45
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
This is just going to drag on and on to a point where it is pointless suspending him as he has already served his suspension.
To be honest I think that's probably Sky's plan.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 17-01-2018 09:08
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Well. With this "excuse" it`s basically not as easy to be Sky`s plan.
Seems to be a no-ban chance with maximum losing his Vuelta title for natural advantage? Though tbh would never happen. No-Ban = keeping Vuelta win anyway.
Or a 2 year ban as it`s no longer a possibility to have miscalculated the number of pulls and hence having similar case as Ulissi with a reduced ban.
Personally I know what I am for. I doubt (without much medical knowledge) that such disfunction can happen just at this one point when being a professional cyclist for years and being one of the most tested riders most likely with regular asthma pulls over the whole year as well.
So I don`t see any real chance to have this kidney disfunction only happening in this one race after years of racing. |
| |
|
|
| df_Trek |
Posted on 17-01-2018 09:45
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2324
Joined: 07-07-2016
PCM$: 17374.00
|
maybe they found a way to cheat with salbutamol and cover it, and for a unexpected reason that day didn't work 
and they are sure in this way to be good at the test day, unless they fall in the same error of the involved stage
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 09:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
roturn wrote:
Personally I know what I am for. I doubt (without much medical knowledge) that such disfunction can happen just at this one point when being a professional cyclist for years and being one of the most tested riders most likely with regular asthma pulls over the whole year as well.
So I don`t see any real chance to have this kidney disfunction only happening in this one race after years of racing.
I doubt Sky are going to build a legal case around a theory with no medical evidence. Their legal teams & doctors must have evidence of what they are saying in order to use it as a defence.
They can't just make stuff up in a court of law.
Whether or not this is what actually happened is another question. I just think Sky were using the TUE system to their advantage, like all other teams, and on this occasion someone just majorly cocked things up.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 17-01-2018 10:43
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
This is just going to drag on and on to a point where it is pointless suspending him as he has already served his suspension.
To be honest I think that's probably Sky's plan.
IMO makes a big difference if someone is officially banned or just suspended from the team.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Champ_Armstrong |
Posted on 17-01-2018 12:25
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 334
Joined: 02-01-2018
PCM$: 200.00
|
Incredible Team Sky not sacking Froome but Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was out in 5 minutes.. remember?
Edit: they're all suspicious |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius97 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 13:10
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4191
Joined: 13-09-2015
PCM$: 300.00
|
Meanwhile Froome has been nominated to the Laureus Sportman of the Year 
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 13:10
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Champ_Armstrong wrote:
Incredible Team Sky not sacking Froome but Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was out in 5 minutes.. remember?
Edit: they're all suspicious
Tiernan-Locke failed a drugs test before he signed for Sky. I assume they sacked him for breach of contract.
Froome has an abnormal result, not a failed test. Would be interesting to see if they would follow their policy and sack him if he did ever fail a test, or even receive a suspension for this. However with this issue, even if he is banned the team can claim he was banned because they were unable to prove he hadn't cheated, rather than him having cheated, and would most likely stand by him.
At the end of the day if they did sack him he would be signed up by someone else in 5 mins so they probably wouldn't do it.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 17-01-2018 13:47
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Hm no, sorry for the semantics, but Froome has a failed test due to this abnormal result, because it's a failed test when A and B sample is positive and over the limit, as was the case with Froome. So no, he failed the test.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 13:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Shonak wrote:
Hm no, sorry for the semantics, but Froome has a failed test due to this abnormal result, because it's a failed test when A and B sample is positive and so is the case with Froome. So yes, he failed the test.
If he had failed a test he would be banned by now. It might be semantics but it's also the rules of cycling. Not saying it's right, but that's how it is.
Would you still be able to say he's failed a test if Sky manage to provide evidence to get it overturned?
It's all just a bit grey at the moment.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| deek12345 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2761
Joined: 13-06-2009
PCM$: 360.00
|
lol so froomey got serious asthma ,kindney malfuntion ,and that deadly parasite disease he had, and hes winning races in the toughest sport in the world this is getting ridicules now . and thought he said that he failed the test because to took few puffs after the stage because he didnt want to be coughing in tv. GIVE ME A BREAK and get the story right before you come out with this crap just another excuse ban him already dont let this drag on . |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 22:28
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:13
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
he'd be better of just admitting it and taking the ban. Go on holiday for 6-9 months and come back in time for the Tour.
Assuming he doesn't have evidence he didn't cheat of course.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:17
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Shonak wrote:
Hm no, sorry for the semantics, but Froome has a failed test due to this abnormal result, because it's a failed test when A and B sample is positive and so is the case with Froome. So yes, he failed the test.
If he had failed a test he would be banned by now. It might be semantics but it's also the rules of cycling. Not saying it's right, but that's how it is.
Would you still be able to say he's failed a test if Sky manage to provide evidence to get it overturned?
It's all just a bit grey at the moment.
He did fail a test, as in he took a drugs test and it came back saying he took drugs!
He can't be instantly banned because of the specific drug he took and it's status. That is why this is dragging on, because they have the chance to show it wasn't doping and was an accident.
But Froome absolutely failed a drugs test, 100% failed. No question on whether he failed or not, because he did. Please be 100% clear about this fact, Froome failed a drugs test.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:20
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Shonak wrote:
Hm no, sorry for the semantics, but Froome has a failed test due to this abnormal result, because it's a failed test when A and B sample is positive and so is the case with Froome. So yes, he failed the test.
If he had failed a test he would be banned by now. It might be semantics but it's also the rules of cycling. Not saying it's right, but that's how it is.
Would you still be able to say he's failed a test if Sky manage to provide evidence to get it overturned?
It's all just a bit grey at the moment.
TMM said it already, as long as he isn't cleared, it's a failed test. Period. I don't see how this is grey area. He is over the limit, people got banned for it. He should be banned, too.
Bardet called recently for a swift end to this whole ordeal. At least a few cyclists are voicing their opinion. https://www.thegu...roome-case
“There would be derision. It would be a farce,” Bardet told the newspaper L’Equipe. “How can our sport be credible if the No 1 rider were to race the Tour with the possibility of a retrospective sanction? Cycling would make no sense.”
Edited by Shonak on 17-01-2018 15:21
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| deek12345 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:20
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2761
Joined: 13-06-2009
PCM$: 360.00
|
wonder will sky fire him because of there (zero tolerence) on doping sorry lmao as i write this. |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:22
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
deek12345 wrote:
wonder will sky fire him because of there (zero tolerence) on doping sorry lmao as i write this.
biggest pr bullshit in the sport since Armstrong's miracle farce. 
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 17:03
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
I think there are different definitions in play here which is why I talk of grey areas.
Has he failed a test. Black and white answer is yes. He had more than the allowed amount of a substance in his system.
But as you say, if he is cleared he has no longer failed a test.
That is why I say it's currently a grey area.
It just needs to be cleared up ASAP. Riders like Bardet are getting involved because they can't plan their season until they know if Froome will or won't be at certain races.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 17-01-2018 17:25
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
I think there are different definitions in play here which is why I talk of grey areas.
You said "If he failed a test he would be banned". That's a pretty clear statement not about grey areas. It's also an incorrect statement, because he has failed a test.
What people need to understand is that returning an adverse analytical finding does not automatically result in a ban. There many reasons why an AAF doesn't mean an automatic ban.
In the case of Salbutamol it's because of it's classification by WADA and that it's use can be allowed with a TUE upto a certain threshold.
As part of the procedure, Froome is given a period of time to show his AAF was not intentional doping. Froome, not Sky, the responsibility lies with the rider to prove innocence but obviously Sky want to support him. (They equally could have cut all ties and left Chris to sort himself out, that could have happened.)
This process takes time, because they need to be allowed enough time to generate a case and make enough supporting evidence and clinical tests to prove innocence.
Riders complaining for a quick solution don't help. Usually they don't understand the proccess and that it is perfectly ok for it to be taking this long.
They can complain about the proccess as a whole, that's fine because frankly i also think it's a rubbish set-up that doesn't help anyone.
There's not really a grey area here. Froome not being given a ban doesn't make the AAF go away, that will still exist forever on his record. The uncertainty comes because there is not definitive resolution from the UCI and there won't be for months yet. That's how this works.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 17-01-2018 18:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
But as you say, if he is cleared he has no longer failed a test.
For me, failed test is a failed test. Easy as that. In Froome's case, it doesn't change things for me if he is cleared, too much bullshit surrounding him.. his just proof to something people knew before.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 17-01-2018 20:28
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Its basically a case of 'my mom spilled her cancer pills in my spaghetti, I didnt do anything wrong'.. Can this dude just have his ban so we can move on?... I don't want a season where this case is clouding it, especially the Giro and the Tour. |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
