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.
Whether those names are clean or not aren't relevant. I simply named some of the most known names in modern sport. My point being that this conspiracy theory would mean that any athlete in a sport connected to WADA with a lot of money and power could get away with doping.
Lord Sagan, Federer, Nadal, Farah or any other of your favorite athletes. Take your pick.
I'm not saying any of these athletes are doping, I'm saying that this conspiracy theory is cracy and much more comprehensive than people think about when they say that Froome got cleared because Sky paid $$$.
ooomega wrote:
Whether those names are clean or not aren't relevant. I simply named some of the most known names in modern sport. My point being that this conspiracy theory would mean that any athlete in a sport connected to WADA with a lot of money and power could get away with doping.
Lord Sagan, Federer, Nadal, Farah or any other of your favorite athletes. Take your pick.
I'm not saying any of these athletes are doping, I'm saying that this conspiracy theory is cracy and much more comprehensive than people think about when they say that Froome got cleared because Sky paid $$$.
Lol, way to miss the point.
I was saying that Bolt, Williams and Phelps are doping, just like Federer, Nadal, Sagan and Froome.
The user formerly known as 'The Schleck Fan' Gracias Alberto.
ooomega wrote:
Whether those names are clean or not aren't relevant. I simply named some of the most known names in modern sport. My point being that this conspiracy theory would mean that any athlete in a sport connected to WADA with a lot of money and power could get away with doping.
Lord Sagan, Federer, Nadal, Farah or any other of your favorite athletes. Take your pick.
I'm not saying any of these athletes are doping, I'm saying that this conspiracy theory is cracy and much more comprehensive than people think about when they say that Froome got cleared because Sky paid $$$.
Lol, way to miss the point.
I was saying that Bolt, Williams and Phelps are doping, just like Federer, Nadal, Sagan and Froome.
So if everyone's doping then why get so worked up about Frome?
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ooomega wrote:
Whether those names are clean or not aren't relevant. I simply named some of the most known names in modern sport. My point being that this conspiracy theory would mean that any athlete in a sport connected to WADA with a lot of money and power could get away with doping.
Lord Sagan, Federer, Nadal, Farah or any other of your favorite athletes. Take your pick.
I'm not saying any of these athletes are doping, I'm saying that this conspiracy theory is cracy and much more comprehensive than people think about when they say that Froome got cleared because Sky paid $$$.
Lol, way to miss the point.
I was saying that Bolt, Williams and Phelps are doping, just like Federer, Nadal, Sagan and Froome.
So if everyone's doping then why get so worked up about Frome?
Firstly, this is a cycling forum so it is normal that Froome is talked more than Bolt and co.
Secondly, it is Sky's and Froome's holier than thou attitude that makes people dislike Sky and Froome.
Also, they are dominating GTs easily. (Froome obvs) It is normal that Sky and Froome are more talked about than a random CT rider doping.
Fourth, he got off on a technicality.
Oh, and fifth, the transformation of Froome, Wiggins and Thomas is so absurd that I can only laugh.
Edited by Forever the Best on 21-07-2018 23:54
The user formerly known as 'The Schleck Fan' Gracias Alberto.
Btw we are talking about salbutamol, not banned substance, but one that you have a cap limit, other main scandals linked to WADA are not comparable because were banned substances (like EPO), so this is not the same of other cases. Here we are talking about an athlet caught with double of a limited substance that despite isn't able to demonstrate his innocence is still racing...
guys...in every sport, where there's money to grab, there are PEDs involved. Thing with Froome is, that he's Armstrong 2.0 and cycling doesn't need that again.
Firstly, this is a cycling forum so it is normal that Froome is talked more than Bolt and co.
Secondly, it is Sky's and Froome's holier than thou attitude that makes people dislike Sky and Froome.
Also, they are dominating GTs easily. (Froome obvs) It is normal that Sky and Froome are more talked about than a random CT rider doping.
Fourth, he got off on a technicality.
Oh, and fifth, the transformation of Froome, Wiggins and Thomas is so absurd that I can only laugh.
So moral of the story is all the stars are doping, including Sagan, but we should hate Sky because that they're Sky.
The transformation of those riders are the same transformation that you see with guys like Dumoulin, Roglic, Porte etc. Good TT riders also have an ability related to a high treshold power which is also beneficial in climbing, especially if they lose weight.
I'm not denying that Froome could be doping just the same as any other athlete who are at the top of their sport. Sky are definitely in a morally grey area where they push boundaries, but so are probably most other teams at this level. They just get all the shit because they're Sky. I just think that the salbutamol case is ridiculous. Imagine being in Froome's shoes at the vuelta: you know your urine gets tested every single day (all the other 20 tests he provided was clean), does he wake up one day and think that today I'm going to go twice the allowed limit with my astma inhaler, knowing 100% that he will get tested?
To me it is more likely that there were some reason for why he went over the limit, and it could be because of dehydration and some sort of problem with the kidney. I don't know how a problem with a kidney affects your cycling performance, but I know that Gilbert won Amstel Gold Race with a tear in his kidney. Whatever reason it is, WADA accepted it.
As stated above, we are talking about salbutamol, not EPO. So if you're looking for why Froome has won 6 Grand Tours, this is not your explanation.
Froome's salbutamol case is extraordinary to any other similar case because it happened in the public, which it should not have been. Because of this, Sky is the only loser in this case, it doesn't matter if Froome got cleared or not people are still going to throw piss and be booing at them because their minds are already made up.
He is probably going to get pushed off his bike by a spectator in the 3rd week.
Still 100% more meainingful than yours "i dont even support SKY, but..." bullshit posts that ignore anything that put bad light on your heroes. I have written enough serious posts on the matter but proper discussion with you is impossible, so when i came back and read last two pages, i cannot help myself to bring a picture.
Good that you identified yourself as one of those "people".
Why, because I've pointed out the fact that Sky have not been convicted of any wrong doing to date? Because I've questioned certain people's calls to ban Froome for being cleared. Because I've answered ridiculous claims of people trying to use comparisons to Maradona and Russia as proof of anything.
What have I said that's stupid?
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
