|
Tour de France 2018 | Stage 12
|
| StevenGreen |
Posted on 21-07-2018 13:57
|
Domestique
Posts: 571
Joined: 25-12-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Kirchen_75 wrote:
Maradona scored with his hand. Didnt get caught = never cheated.
This logic...
"He made a bigger comeback than Easter Sunday."
|
| |
|
|
| FreitasPCM |
Posted on 21-07-2018 14:29
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8389
Joined: 08-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
If you have power, there are way too many interests in the play. Therefore, any debacle, insinuation or fraud regarding any powerful entity will be covered in order not to damage said interests. It happens in Portugal (W-52 in cycling, even Porto and Benfica on other sports) and it’s the same happening with Sky. Power is power and will always overcome knowledge, rules or any kind of science in fact. Froome, intentionally or not, had an advantage towards (most) of his competitors. He was cleared, mainly like Porto and Benfica were in Portugal’s corruption cases, but the fraud is still visible to everyone’s eyes, only covered by the power they hold. |
| |
|
|
| Yellow Jersey |
Posted on 21-07-2018 14:43
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2809
Joined: 16-04-2013
PCM$: 900.00
|
True.. the hype for La GrandÃssima is real but as it's been for the last few years, I'll probably be disapointed at the race cause it's incredibly similar racing to the Tour (dominating team, no fight by other teams to win), and as I've found for the last 2 years the race has a rubbish reputation, ABSOLUTE rubbish and I can see why sadly.
Still, the route is good this year (first time I've ever said it since I study races) and naive me is still looking forward to it, maybe also cause I'll be out on the roadside in some.
|
| |
|
|
| Yellow Jersey |
Posted on 21-07-2018 15:02
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2809
Joined: 16-04-2013
PCM$: 900.00
|
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 15:08
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
Kirchen_75 wrote:
Maradona scored with his hand. Didnt get caught = never cheated.
This logic...
I agree with the overall notion that Sky is actively or passively abusing the power they have, and are probably doping, but this is a silly argument. It's not about getting caught, the blood values are there. It's about the handling of the situation, the application of rules.
If I were to exaggerate, and just for the fun of it use a football metaphor as well, what is happening with the Petacchi-Ulissi-Froome comparisons is like complaining that two players took the ball into the hand, but only one of them got a penalty, while glossing over the fact that the other is the goalkeeper. The problem, of course, is that in football, it is clear and accepted why the goalkeeper may use his hands. In Froome's salbutamol case, it is not. To some extent, this is indeed the UCI's fault, although I agree that there's more to that.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 28-11-2024 08:45
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 15:39
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
This is more or less exactly my point. Sky have clearly used the TUE system. And, like most teams, have most likely abused it. But in respect of the laws of cycling they have done nothing wrong to date and so are clear to race. They have not failed any doping test.
The Maradona point is also a nonsense. He clearly cheated, there is video evidence of him cheating. The referee didn't see it and so no action was taken. If the referee had seen it he would have been sent off. There was no option to retrospectively ban Maradonna so he got away with it.
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Sky's part to date and so there is no comparison etween the two. As far as I'm aware no one has seen Froome shooting up in the back of the team coach after a stage?
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 15:51
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Sky's part to date and so there is no comparison etween the two. As far as I'm aware no one has seen Froome shooting up in the back of the team coach after a stage?
To be fair though, circumstancial evidence is a thing. You have to admit that if "there's no smoking gun" is more or less your only defense, this may suffice in court, but you can't blame other people for forming a different opinion, even a very strong one, based on the things they see.
|
| |
|
|
| StevenGreen |
Posted on 21-07-2018 15:55
|
Domestique
Posts: 571
Joined: 25-12-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Sky's part to date and so there is no comparison etween the two. As far as I'm aware no one has seen Froome shooting up in the back of the team coach after a stage?
To be fair though, circumstancial evidence is a thing. You have to admit that if "there's no smoking gun" is more or less your only defense, this may suffice in court, but you can't blame other people for forming a different opinion, even a very strong one, based on the things they see.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impressions that the evidence in Froome's salbutamol case was as clear as it was in prior case which resulted in bans.
"He made a bigger comeback than Easter Sunday."
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:01
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
I'm not 100% familiar with all the details. But as I said above, yes, the blood values are there. And then rules are applied, considering all context. And either the UCI is (corrupt/inept) and everything is lost anyway, or the context was different compared to Petacchi or Ulissi, which is what I tried to illustrate with the goalkeeper szenario. The problem to me is that the context wasn't made clear (if it was, please let me know).
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:09
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Sky's part to date and so there is no comparison etween the two. As far as I'm aware no one has seen Froome shooting up in the back of the team coach after a stage?
To be fair though, circumstancial evidence is a thing. You have to admit that if "there's no smoking gun" is more or less your only defense, this may suffice in court, but you can't blame other people for forming a different opinion, even a very strong one, based on the things they see.
100% agree. As I've said, no problem with people stating what they believe. My problem is people trying to state as fact that sky are drug cheats when there is no factual evidence to support that. Only circumstancial evidence. How many people get convicted of crimes only to be pardoned years later?
If sky really are cheating as most of you say they are then hopefully they will be caught at some point. Until then they are innocent.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| StevenGreen |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:14
|
Domestique
Posts: 571
Joined: 25-12-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
cunego59 wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Sky's part to date and so there is no comparison etween the two. As far as I'm aware no one has seen Froome shooting up in the back of the team coach after a stage?
To be fair though, circumstancial evidence is a thing. You have to admit that if "there's no smoking gun" is more or less your only defense, this may suffice in court, but you can't blame other people for forming a different opinion, even a very strong one, based on the things they see.
100% agree. As I've said, no problem with people stating what they believe. My problem is people trying to state as fact that sky are drug cheats when there is no factual evidence to support that. Only circumstancial evidence. How many people get convicted of crimes only to be pardoned years later?
If sky really are cheating as most of you say they are then hopefully they will be caught at some point. Until then they are innocent.
So what's the difference between Froome's case and the Ulissi / Petacchi case?
"He made a bigger comeback than Easter Sunday."
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:15
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
I don't remember you being so vocal about athletes being innocent until proven guilty in the olympics thread regarding the Russians. Then they all were guilty even if not proven for you. It's obvious that you have a nationalistic mind set defining your oppinions, so it is clearly not possible for you to think critical if British athletes are involved. |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:18
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
Kirchen_75 wrote:
Maradona scored with his hand. Didnt get caught = never cheated.
This logic...
I agree with the overall notion that Sky is actively or passively abusing the power they have, and are probably doping, but this is a silly argument. It's not about getting caught, the blood values are there. It's about the handling of the situation, the application of rules.
If I were to exaggerate, and just for the fun of it use a football metaphor as well, what is happening with the Petacchi-Ulissi-Froome comparisons is like complaining that two players took the ball into the hand, but only one of them got a penalty, while glossing over the fact that the other is the goalkeeper. The problem, of course, is that in football, it is clear and accepted why the goalkeeper may use his hands. In Froome's salbutamol case, it is not. To some extent, this is indeed the UCI's fault, although I agree that there's more to that.
I don't this analogy at all. Froome, Ulissi and Petacchi should be all normal cyclists, there is no difference between them.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:26
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Bikex wrote:
I don't remember you being so vocal about athletes being innocent until proven guilty in the olympics thread regarding the Russians. Then they all were guilty even if not proven for you. It's obvious that you have a nationalistic mind set defining your oppinions, so it is clearly not possible for you to think critical if British athletes are involved.
Russia have been banned because they are clearly guilty. There is evidence of their guilt. No evidence in Sky case.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:27
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
StevenGreen wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
cunego59 wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Sky's part to date and so there is no comparison etween the two. As far as I'm aware no one has seen Froome shooting up in the back of the team coach after a stage?
To be fair though, circumstancial evidence is a thing. You have to admit that if "there's no smoking gun" is more or less your only defense, this may suffice in court, but you can't blame other people for forming a different opinion, even a very strong one, based on the things they see.
100% agree. As I've said, no problem with people stating what they believe. My problem is people trying to state as fact that sky are drug cheats when there is no factual evidence to support that. Only circumstancial evidence. How many people get convicted of crimes only to be pardoned years later?
If sky really are cheating as most of you say they are then hopefully they will be caught at some point. Until then they are innocent.
So what's the difference between Froome's case and the Ulissi / Petacchi case?
Don't know. Speak to WADA and UCI because they made the decisions.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| ooomega |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:27
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 29-06-2018
PCM$: 200.00
|
WADA rules state that salbutamol is permitted to be present up to a threshold of 1,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml). A lot of media has written that he had 2,000 ng/ml but after dehydration was taken into account the correct number Froome had was 1,190 ng/ml. Ulissi for example had 1,900. I believe that Sky explained it by a kidney problem that Froome had, and WADA experts accepted their explanation.
Froome delivered 20 other tests in that vuelta, and none of the other tests was over the limit.
You could say that it is "unfair" to other athletes that Sky has the budget and power to do proper research and provide a proper explanation to clear Froome, but it's not their fault that other teams are not able to do the same.
These types of cases happens all the time because salbutamol is widely used by professional endurance athletes. You only hear about the athletes that gets banned because a case like this is not a direct violation of the doping regulations, and therefore it should not be made public unless an athlete is banned. This means that it could potentially be hundreds of similar cases where athlethes have been cleared, but we don't get to know about them.
The big problem in Froome's case is that it was leaked in december while being under investigation. If the ones who worked with his case actually did their job properly, we wouldn't even know about this "adverse analytic finding".
Instead, everyone who dislikes Froome has already made up their mind about him because of the headlines that said he was busted for doping, even though he was later cleared. |
| |
|
|
| df_Trek |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:31
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2324
Joined: 07-07-2016
PCM$: 17374.00
|
ooomega wrote:
A lot of media has written that he had 2,000 ng/ml but after dehydration was taken into account the correct number Froome had was 1,190 ng/ml.
Source?
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:38
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Bikex wrote:
I don't remember you being so vocal about athletes being innocent until proven guilty in the olympics thread regarding the Russians. Then they all were guilty even if not proven for you. It's obvious that you have a nationalistic mind set defining your oppinions, so it is clearly not possible for you to think critical if British athletes are involved.
Russia have been banned because they are clearly guilty. There is evidence of their guilt. No evidence in Sky case.
The evidence is the fucking 2000 mg 
I'm out. This is going nowhere.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Bikex wrote:
I don't remember you being so vocal about athletes being innocent until proven guilty in the olympics thread regarding the Russians. Then they all were guilty even if not proven for you. It's obvious that you have a nationalistic mind set defining your oppinions, so it is clearly not possible for you to think critical if British athletes are involved.
Russia have been banned because they are clearly guilty. There is evidence of their guilt. No evidence in Sky case.
Iirc you were demanding athletes to be banned that were cleared to start (= no factual evidence against them, as you say). Why the hypocrisy? |
| |
|
|
| ooomega |
Posted on 21-07-2018 16:55
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 29-06-2018
PCM$: 200.00
|
df_Trek wrote:
ooomega wrote:
A lot of media has written that he had 2,000 ng/ml but after dehydration was taken into account the correct number Froome had was 1,190 ng/ml.
Source?
Sky's press release about the case said that it was revised to 19% over the limit. |
| |
|
