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.
i think over the decision limit which is 1200, so it was 14xx and the kidney failure wasn't the reason for that. Tbh, if you think someone with a failing kidney can win a GT, I can't help you anymore.
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.
i think over the decision limit which is 1200, so it was 14xx and the kidney failure wasn't the reason for that. Tbh, if you think someone with a failing kidney can win a GT, I can't help you anymore.
I don't need your help, I'm not delusional. Salbutamol (alone) is not what made Froome win 6 GTs. I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
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?
I was demanding the Russian Ferderation, who were proven to be running a state sponsored doping programme, be banned as a whole. And they were because they were guilty. I never singled out any individuals.
You complained that Russians were allowed to start in some disciplines or under a neutral flag. But doesn't matter this is not about Russia. I just wanted to point out your hypocrisy, which is very obvious when looking at these two cases.
Shonak wrote:
I don't this analogy at all. Froome, Ulissi and Petacchi should be all normal cyclists, there is no difference between them.
StevenGreen wrote:
So what's the difference between Froome's case and the Ulissi / Petacchi case?
Bikex wrote:
I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
I'm really not sure how I ended up somewhat defending Chris freaking Froome, but the way I see it, there are two possibilities:
a) The UCI is very corrupt very openly because they're confident to get away with it and/or don't care, and Sky is complicit.
b) There's a rule that says "If you have X amount of salbutamol, you get punished, unless Y", and there's a Y that is different in Froome's case than it is in Petacchi's or Ulissi's. What that Y is, I don't know, but what ooomega says maybe points in a direction.
Have your pick. I want to make it clear that I still believe that they're doping, and you may even find more evidence in their weird reasoning, but unless you assume a), this doesn't seem to be the proof you're looking for. If you assume a), then yeah, we're not in a good spot
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?
I was demanding the Russian Ferderation, who were proven to be running a state sponsored doping programme, be banned as a whole. And they were because they were guilty. I never singled out any individuals.
You complained that Russians were allowed to start in some disciplines or under a neutral flag. But doesn't matter this is not about Russia. I just wanted to point out your hypocrisy, which is very obvious when looking at these two cases.
Except one have been found guilty and one has been cleared, so not the same at all. If Sky were found guilty of cheating would you be happy for riders to ride under a neutral banner in their place. They are nutrual but still representing the banned country.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
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.
Sky said also that Froome gained all the time descending Finestre...
I'm not taking into consideration biased sources
Except one have been found guilty and one has been cleared, so not the same at all. If Sky were found guilty of cheating would you be happy for riders to ride under a neutral banner in their place. They are nutrual but still representing the banned country.
Yes I would be because I'm no hypocrite. If Sky were found to be doping (and punished) I would be happy to see their riders ride on, if it wasn't proven individually for them that they have been doping.
@cunego: Y = $$$
Imo it is quite clear that Froome could not prove that his high salbutamol reading was due to something else. Does not directly mean corruption, maybe the authorities were just too scared to fight against such a powerful team like sky.
Still corruption is of course not unlikely. I have no trust at all in sports authorities (like ringo seems to have for some reason).
Shonak wrote:
I don't this analogy at all. Froome, Ulissi and Petacchi should be all normal cyclists, there is no difference between them.
StevenGreen wrote:
So what's the difference between Froome's case and the Ulissi / Petacchi case?
Bikex wrote:
I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
I'm really not sure how I ended up somewhat defending Chris freaking Froome, but the way I see it, there are two possibilities:
a) The UCI is very corrupt very openly because they're confident to get away with it and/or don't care, and Sky is complicit.
b) There's a rule that says "If you have X amount of salbutamol, you get punished, unless Y", and there's a Y that is different in Froome's case than it is in Petacchi's or Ulissi's. What that Y is, I don't know, but what ooomega says maybe points in a direction.
Have your pick. I want to make it clear that I still believe that they're doping, and you may even find more evidence in their weird reasoning, but unless you assume a), this doesn't seem to be the proof you're looking for. If you assume a), then yeah, we're not in a good spot
Exactly...Nice answer cunego
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
_____________________________________________ PCM Velogames Championship - Top Results
* 1st Tour de Suisse ('23)
* 1st Tour de Romandie ('19, '18)
* 1st Tour de Pologne ('20, '19)
* 2nd Tour of California ('19)
* 2nd Tour de Suisse ('18)
* 3rd Tour de France ('23, '21)
* 3rd Giro d’Italia ('22)
* 3rd Vuelta Espana ('23)
* 3rd Autumn Classics ('19, '18)
* 9th Spring Classics ('18)
ringo182 wrote:
No, I just know that if sky got done for doping you would kick off if Frome or Thomas or anyone else carried on racing under a neutral team.
Why do you think you know better than me how I'd react in your strange scenario?
ringo182 wrote:
No, I just know that if sky got done for doping you would kick off if Frome or Thomas or anyone else carried on racing under a neutral team.
Why do you think you know better than me how I'd react in your strange scenario?
Your the one who started talking about banning teams and letting individuals carry on. You can blame yourself for the scenario.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
No, I just know that if sky got done for doping you would kick off if Frome or Thomas or anyone else carried on racing under a neutral team.
Why do you think you know better than me how I'd react in your strange scenario?
Your the one who started talking about banning teams and letting individuals carry on. You can blame yourself for the scenario.
No I did not.
You are obviously here just to troll, I don't know why I even care. Have a good day!
ringo182 wrote:
No, I just know that if sky got done for doping you would kick off if Frome or Thomas or anyone else carried on racing under a neutral team.
Why do you think you know better than me how I'd react in your strange scenario?
Your the one who started talking about banning teams and letting individuals carry on. You can blame yourself for the scenario.
No I did not.
You are obviously here just to troll, I don't know why I even care. Have a good day!
Well you did because you brought up the Russian doping scandal and the neutral athletes allowed to continue to compete.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
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.
i think over the decision limit which is 1200, so it was 14xx and the kidney failure wasn't the reason for that. Tbh, if you think someone with a failing kidney can win a GT, I can't help you anymore.
I don't need your help, I'm not delusional. Salbutamol (alone) is not what made Froome win 6 GTs. I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
Interesting, what are the other drugs?
Like cunego stated it comes down to the WADA experts who for whatever reasons we don't know 100% sure yet except for the small piece of information Sky have released, vs. the conspiracy theorists on the internet.
Lance Armstrong and US Postal Service wasn't powerful enough and didn't have enough money to offer WADA, but Sky have?
Keep in mind that we are talking about WADA, which means that if your conspiracy theory is correct, most sports in the world are f*cked.
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.
i think over the decision limit which is 1200, so it was 14xx and the kidney failure wasn't the reason for that. Tbh, if you think someone with a failing kidney can win a GT, I can't help you anymore.
I don't need your help, I'm not delusional. Salbutamol (alone) is not what made Froome win 6 GTs. I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
Interesting, what are the other drugs?
Like cunego stated it comes down to the WADA experts who for whatever reasons we don't know 100% sure yet except for the small piece of information Sky have released, vs. the conspiracy theorists on the internet.
Lance Armstrong and US Postal Service wasn't powerful enough and didn't have enough money to offer WADA, but Sky have?
Keep in mind that we are talking about WADA, which means that if your conspiracy theory is correct, most sports in the world are f*cked.
Armstrong/USPS was powerful enough to corrupt the UCI that's not even a conspiracy theory. He only tripped, because the USA have a strong justice system if the wrong interests are harmed.
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.
i think over the decision limit which is 1200, so it was 14xx and the kidney failure wasn't the reason for that. Tbh, if you think someone with a failing kidney can win a GT, I can't help you anymore.
I don't need your help, I'm not delusional. Salbutamol (alone) is not what made Froome win 6 GTs. I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
Interesting, what are the other drugs?
Like cunego stated it comes down to the WADA experts who for whatever reasons we don't know 100% sure yet except for the small piece of information Sky have released, vs. the conspiracy theorists on the internet.
Lance Armstrong and US Postal Service wasn't powerful enough and didn't have enough money to offer WADA, but Sky have?
Keep in mind that we are talking about WADA, which means that if your conspiracy theory is correct, most sports in the world are f*cked.
Armstrong/USPS was powerful enough to corrupt the UCI that's not even a conspiracy theory. He only tripped, because the USA have a strong justice system if the wrong interests are harmed.
I am talking about WADA, not UCI. I don't doubt that UCI could be corrupt.
My point was that WADA, who has been directly used in the investigation with Froome, would have to be corrupt in order to make this conspiracy theory.
The implication being that if you have enough money, you can make sure that WADA could clear any athlete for doping. This would mean that the biggest stars in the sport world such as Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and Serena Williams could have been doing the same. Every single sport in the world that WADA are connected to would be f*cked.
I don't need your help, I'm not delusional. Salbutamol (alone) is not what made Froome win 6 GTs. I just believe a cycling team should not stand above the rules because it has the most money.
Interesting, what are the other drugs?
Like cunego stated it comes down to the WADA experts who for whatever reasons we don't know 100% sure yet except for the small piece of information Sky have released, vs. the conspiracy theorists on the internet.
Lance Armstrong and US Postal Service wasn't powerful enough and didn't have enough money to offer WADA, but Sky have?
Keep in mind that we are talking about WADA, which means that if your conspiracy theory is correct, most sports in the world are f*cked.
Armstrong/USPS was powerful enough to corrupt the UCI that's not even a conspiracy theory. He only tripped, because the USA have a strong justice system if the wrong interests are harmed.
I am talking about WADA, not UCI. I don't doubt that UCI could be corrupt.
My point was that WADA, who has been directly used in the investigation with Froome, would have to be corrupt in order to make this conspiracy theory.
The implication being that if you have enough money, you can make sure that WADA could clear any athlete for doping. This would mean that the biggest stars in the sport world such as Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and Serena Williams could have been doing the same. Every single sport in the world that WADA are connected to would be f*cked.
Hahahahahahaha. Bolt, Williams and Phelps, the epitome of cleanliness. Hahahahahahaha
The user formerly known as 'The Schleck Fan' Gracias Alberto.
