FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Chris Froome - drugs in sport
Chris Froome - drugs in sport
Jump to: Newest in thread
So in the Serena Williams thread about her behaviour Chris Froome was mentioned with the suggestion of him being a role model. I said shame he is a cheat along with a lot of others in cycling.
Cue messages saying I don't follow the sport, only read the daily mail, know nothing etc etc haha. Not the case but anyway...
So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
The amount of sports people of a world class level, some of the best in the world that claim innocence, have asthma/other medical conditions, or get contaminated from meat etc is way too high.
They simply appear to be manipulating the system or using it as an excuse to use drugs they know can help performance.
In the past couple of years Sharapova (tennis), Canelo (boxing), Froome (cycling).
Household names at the top end of their sport, failing tests and then claiming innocence.
Froome was cleared, yet it's difficult for me to believe anything the UCI say due to the on going drug issues in cycling. Same goes for any 100m sprinters etc.
Not here to argue genuinely just curious what people think.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Difficult one, have they taken substances (possibly ones allowed) that have performance enhancing properties?
Yes.
Are they aiming to try to stay within the limits?
Probably.
They clearly are trying to utilise substances to gain advantages, maybe unethically or against the code of sport.
is it cheating?
Probably
I'd say that it happens far more than we hear about, the fact that they give these ridiculous excuses as cover only makes it seem more absurd. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought they had investigated and found not guilty so how is he a cheat? "
Yes Froome was cleared as I mentioned. But due to the history of drugs in cycling and other sports do you believe it? And even so are sportsmen/woman just manipulating the rules. Which seems ethically wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Difficult one, have they taken substances (possibly ones allowed) that have performance enhancing properties?
Yes.
Are they aiming to try to stay within the limits?
Probably.
They clearly are trying to utilise substances to gain advantages, maybe unethically or against the code of sport.
is it cheating?
Probably
I'd say that it happens far more than we hear about, the fact that they give these ridiculous excuses as cover only makes it seem more absurd."
Very well put. Technically they might not be breaking rules, but it does seem wrong and just blurs the lines. Anything artificial that enhances performance is cheating in my view. And yes I agree on the excuses, just find them so difficult to believe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have been involved in cycling literally all my life, my parents were cyclists, my grandparents were cyclists, I've been on first name terms with national champions world champions and olympians. I like to think I am a little more informed than most and being honest I wouldn't bet a penny on any cyclist being clean and that includes the British, The sport is rotten to the core, always has been, always will be.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh and judging by the fact that most UKAD bans are Rugby players, they clearly don;t benefit from the financial clout that keeps doping scandals away from other sports like Tennis, Athletics and of course Football |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the argument is that cycling is rotten to the core and everyone is doping, does it mean the playing field is level?
In nearly every sport, the rules are pushed to the limit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have been involved in cycling literally all my life, my parents were cyclists, my grandparents were cyclists, I've been on first name terms with national champions world champions and olympians. I like to think I am a little more informed than most and being honest I wouldn't bet a penny on any cyclist being clean and that includes the British, The sport is rotten to the core, always has been, always will be.
"
This is extremely disturbing. So these athletes place more importance on winning and the fame that comes with it than proving they are the best athlete or living in the satisfaction that they put their body to its physical and mental limits in order to achieve all that they could.
So who is to blame here? The athlete? The team doctor? The chemist that makes such PHDs or derivatives of such?
To broaden the topic the research and development in medicine and pharmaceuticals is a wonderful part of the modern world however, it is now leading to more deeper impacts on so many levels |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
With regards to the Chris Froome salbutamol case, it was shown there was a large volatility in test results, returning false positives meaning that the test was ‘fundamentally flawed’
Salbutamol is used to treat and alleviate the symptoms of asthma, cyclists are allowed to use it within the permissible doses.
Essentially he uses a puffer, as do many cyclist, to help him breath so he doesn’t have an attack, it’s within the rules, it is not performance enhancing.
It’s hardly Lance Armstrong is it OP, so your title is misleading and unfair, but people who aren’t into cycling and just like to knock the sport, because they’re all ‘cheats’ aren’t really interested in facts.
Cycling has always been the whipping boy of sport, even though it’s the most regulated and heavierly tested of any sport.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the argument is that cycling is rotten to the core and everyone is doping, does it mean the playing field is level?
In nearly every sport, the rules are pushed to the limit. "
Is pushing the limits with doping, legal medicines more or less acceptable than gamesmanship in a scrum or ruck in rugby, diving in football. To me those acts push the boundaries close to cheating too and, also bring in to question the sporting code |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the argument is that cycling is rotten to the core and everyone is doping, does it mean the playing field is level?
In nearly every sport, the rules are pushed to the limit. "
This is why there has to be a total clampdown though and real lifetime bans. 6 months/a year or so out the sport isn't putting people off cheating. Its too easy to say sorry and be back after a reduced ban.
Justin Gatlin winning the world championships after being banned on 2 separate occasions is a prime example and sad to see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With regards to the Chris Froome salbutamol case, it was shown there was a large volatility in test results, returning false positives meaning that the test was ‘fundamentally flawed’
Salbutamol is used to treat and alleviate the symptoms of asthma, cyclists are allowed to use it within the permissible doses.
Essentially he uses a puffer, as do many cyclist, to help him breath so he doesn’t have an attack, it’s within the rules, it is not performance enhancing.
It’s hardly Lance Armstrong is it OP, so your title is misleading and unfair, but people who aren’t into cycling and just like to knock the sport, because they’re all ‘cheats’ aren’t really interested in facts.
Cycling has always been the whipping boy of sport, even though it’s the most regulated and heavierly tested of any sport.
"
I haven't delved into the ins and outs of any cases here. My question would be that, without any medicinal help would anyone with asthma have the physiological characteristics to perform at the levels they do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Here's some very simple logic for anyone and this is without doing into the detail of why drugs testing is an absolute farce or why sports governing bodies have absolutely no intention of ridding drugs from sports.
If you catch the world #4 on drugs, only a fucking idiot would believe 1, 2 and 3 were clean. You'd have to be so wildly ignorant of how small the gap in talent at the top is, and how much different drugs make, to believe in stupid shit like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With regards to the Chris Froome salbutamol case, it was shown there was a large volatility in test results, returning false positives meaning that the test was ‘fundamentally flawed’
Salbutamol is used to treat and alleviate the symptoms of asthma, cyclists are allowed to use it within the permissible doses.
Essentially he uses a puffer, as do many cyclist, to help him breath so he doesn’t have an attack, it’s within the rules, it is not performance enhancing.
It’s hardly Lance Armstrong is it OP, so your title is misleading and unfair, but people who aren’t into cycling and just like to knock the sport, because they’re all ‘cheats’ aren’t really interested in facts.
Cycling has always been the whipping boy of sport, even though it’s the most regulated and heavierly tested of any sport.
"
Does that not concern you as a sports fan though that the testing was fundamentally flawed?
You say it's not Lance Armstrong but his tests were apparently 'clean' for years. Wasnt because he wasn't cheating. Testing can and is being manipulated - see Russia.
I have asthma so know what it is.
The title of my thread is Chris Froome drugs is sport. I don't think that's misleading at all. He took a legal drug and tested double the permissible level for his sport.
Cycling takes a battering because consistently some of the top riders in the world are caught doping. Whilst I admire they test often it clearly isn't putting enough people off.
I'm not here just to give cycling a bad name. I happen to like it. I asked a question And mentioned other sports but you seem to take it personal. Just a friendly discussion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With regards to the Chris Froome salbutamol case, it was shown there was a large volatility in test results, returning false positives meaning that the test was ‘fundamentally flawed’
Salbutamol is used to treat and alleviate the symptoms of asthma, cyclists are allowed to use it within the permissible doses.
Essentially he uses a puffer, as do many cyclist, to help him breath so he doesn’t have an attack, it’s within the rules, it is not performance enhancing.
It’s hardly Lance Armstrong is it OP, so your title is misleading and unfair, but people who aren’t into cycling and just like to knock the sport, because they’re all ‘cheats’ aren’t really interested in facts.
Cycling has always been the whipping boy of sport, even though it’s the most regulated and heavierly tested of any sport.
Does that not concern you as a sports fan though that the testing was fundamentally flawed?
You say it's not Lance Armstrong but his tests were apparently 'clean' for years. Wasnt because he wasn't cheating. Testing can and is being manipulated - see Russia.
I have asthma so know what it is.
The title of my thread is Chris Froome drugs is sport. I don't think that's misleading at all. He took a legal drug and tested double the permissible level for his sport.
Cycling takes a battering because consistently some of the top riders in the world are caught doping. Whilst I admire they test often it clearly isn't putting enough people off.
I'm not here just to give cycling a bad name. I happen to like it. I asked a question And mentioned other sports but you seem to take it personal. Just a friendly discussion."
There is one sport on the face of the planet that has legit drugs testing. One. It makes for a perfect case study of what clean vrs drug enhanced looks like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"With regards to the Chris Froome salbutamol case, it was shown there was a large volatility in test results, returning false positives meaning that the test was ‘fundamentally flawed’
Salbutamol is used to treat and alleviate the symptoms of asthma, cyclists are allowed to use it within the permissible doses.
Essentially he uses a puffer, as do many cyclist, to help him breath so he doesn’t have an attack, it’s within the rules, it is not performance enhancing.
It’s hardly Lance Armstrong is it OP, so your title is misleading and unfair, but people who aren’t into cycling and just like to knock the sport, because they’re all ‘cheats’ aren’t really interested in facts.
Cycling has always been the whipping boy of sport, even though it’s the most regulated and heavierly tested of any sport.
"
And intravenous salbutamol is great for weightloss. Which is what the whole case centred on.
Something that sits very uncomfortable with me about modern cyclists is that the likes of Lemond, Roche, even climbers like Miller and Pantani were small guys, non of them look anywhere near as skinny as the current top riders of this generation.
Cycling has been the whipping boy because it has had scandal after scandal. But even though the fact that almost 13 years on a lot of Spanish footballers and some tennis players are still not being named for their involvement in Operation Puerto while many cyclists were finished overnight is a complete travisty, it doesn't mean that cycling hasn't had and most likely still does have a significant problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you catch the world #4 on drugs, only a fucking idiot would believe 1, 2 and 3 were clean. You'd have to be so wildly ignorant of how small the gap in talent at the top is, and how much different drugs make, to believe in stupid shit like that.
 Exactly this. And the most blatent example is Usain Bolt who not only has beaten countless dopers, he makes them look ordinary. But much like Mo, IAAF have enough sense and are corrupt enough to ensure their top names are untouchable"
Look at rugby, it's riddled. Compare will carling to manu tuilagi. If anyone thinks that's "ice baths and better nutrition" then i have some Nigerian shares I'd like people to invest in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you catch the world #4 on drugs, only a fucking idiot would believe 1, 2 and 3 were clean. You'd have to be so wildly ignorant of how small the gap in talent at the top is, and how much different drugs make, to believe in stupid shit like that.
Exactly this. And the most blatent example is Usain Bolt who not only has beaten countless dopers, he makes them look ordinary. But much like Mo, IAAF have enough sense and are corrupt enough to ensure their top names are untouchable
Look at rugby, it's riddled. Compare will carling to manu tuilagi. If anyone thinks that's "ice baths and better nutrition" then i have some Nigerian shares I'd like people to invest in."
If you look at the UKAD site it shows current bans and the majority are from Rugby (both disciplines). And in reference to Tame Impala's comment about cycling being the whipping boy, Rugby gets nowhere near the same scrutiny or criticism.
On a slight tangent there is a British cyclist currently serving a 4 year ban despite having never raced. He was/is recreational cyclist with club membership and membership to the governing body for insurance purposes. And also a gym rat, customs intercepted steroids (or similar) he;d brought on line and reported him to UKAD. Go figure that one out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"With regards to the Chris Froome salbutamol case, it was shown there was a large volatility in test results, returning false positives meaning that the test was ‘fundamentally flawed’
Salbutamol is used to treat and alleviate the symptoms of asthma, cyclists are allowed to use it within the permissible doses.
Essentially he uses a puffer, as do many cyclist, to help him breath so he doesn’t have an attack, it’s within the rules, it is not performance enhancing.
It’s hardly Lance Armstrong is it OP, so your title is misleading and unfair, but people who aren’t into cycling and just like to knock the sport, because they’re all ‘cheats’ aren’t really interested in facts.
Cycling has always been the whipping boy of sport, even though it’s the most regulated and heavierly tested of any sport.
And intravenous salbutamol is great for weightloss. Which is what the whole case centred on.
Something that sits very uncomfortable with me about modern cyclists is that the likes of Lemond, Roche, even climbers like Miller and Pantani were small guys, non of them look anywhere near as skinny as the current top riders of this generation.
Cycling has been the whipping boy because it has had scandal after scandal. But even though the fact that almost 13 years on a lot of Spanish footballers and some tennis players are still not being named for their involvement in Operation Puerto while many cyclists were finished overnight is a complete travisty, it doesn't mean that cycling hasn't had and most likely still does have a significant problem"
He didn’t take intravenous salbutamol, he used an inhaler that has zero performance enhancing effects. You honestly think that this era is the same as the Armstrong era when they used EPO and blood transfusions ?!
Things are run very differently now, I’m not saying they’re are no bad apples but they are the minority, compared to when the minority were the clean riders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you catch the world #4 on drugs, only a fucking idiot would believe 1, 2 and 3 were clean. You'd have to be so wildly ignorant of how small the gap in talent at the top is, and how much different drugs make, to believe in stupid shit like that.
Exactly this. And the most blatent example is Usain Bolt who not only has beaten countless dopers, he makes them look ordinary. But much like Mo, IAAF have enough sense and are corrupt enough to ensure their top names are untouchable
Look at rugby, it's riddled. Compare will carling to manu tuilagi. If anyone thinks that's "ice baths and better nutrition" then i have some Nigerian shares I'd like people to invest in.
If you look at the UKAD site it shows current bans and the majority are from Rugby (both disciplines). And in reference to Tame Impala's comment about cycling being the whipping boy, Rugby gets nowhere near the same scrutiny or criticism.
On a slight tangent there is a British cyclist currently serving a 4 year ban despite having never raced. He was/is recreational cyclist with club membership and membership to the governing body for insurance purposes. And also a gym rat, customs intercepted steroids (or similar) he;d brought on line and reported him to UKAD. Go figure that one out"
Because there's this nonsense popular logic in rugby that in the last 20 years; training and diet methods have evolved so much that the players can be 20kg heavier and still faster, without drugs. If we actually rid the sport of drugs that every premiership team would end up fielding it's under 16 team for their next fixture, just to raise a side.
As i say, there is one sport that is legit clean and it's telling that nobody wants to follow how they did it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Complicated stuff anyone seen Icarus... ??
Also, I have heard quoted on either Eurosport of C4 that the use of inhalers is documented to be across 40% of pro cyclists.
As an inhaler is generally a treatment for respiratory conditions is it not odd that 40% of cyclists have respiratory conditions??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is that sport?"
Bodybuilding divides itself into two strands "natural bodybuilding" and untested. So people that want to take steroids go the untested route and no questions are asked. The people that go the natural route do drugs testing and polygraph together. In the latter case, since the culture is so anti-drugs that it's almost self policing anyway, it's not even a huge stigma if you do want to start taking drugs, just fuck off and compete in the other side of the sport. To fail the drugs test or polygraph would likely result in you losing all your friends in the sport, because you're cheating the whole sport. You don't need to tell me that polygraphs are a dubious art, but i promise you the bodybuilding system works. You only have to look at pictures of the respective Champions of each strand and notice a whopping difference. The natural champions aren't cheating because it's really not hard to tell what a jucied body look like. It's a great case study of what look athletes can achieve without drugs too, so when you see rugby players that are bigger and run a few miles, yeah that ain't natural. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Complicated stuff anyone seen Icarus... ??
Also, I have heard quoted on either Eurosport of C4 that the use of inhalers is documented to be across 40% of pro cyclists.
As an inhaler is generally a treatment for respiratory conditions is it not odd that 40% of cyclists have respiratory conditions??
"
Exactly this mate! Strange how many top level athletes have something like this. Which makes you think they don't medically need it, but they know it helps performance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"What about team Sky's dodgy packages and dodgy doctors for sir Bradley
Not all cheaters get caught
I suspect the majority don't get caught. Which is the most worrying thing."
The rest aren't as hypocritical as team sky and their systematic cheating under brailsford
Team sky,Wiggins and froome all came from nowhere and have dominated in the dirtiest sport in the world and everybody bought it until they were exposed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about team Sky's dodgy packages and dodgy doctors for sir Bradley
Not all cheaters get caught
I suspect the majority don't get caught. Which is the most worrying thing."
There's a guy called Victor Conte who ran a steroid lab that made custom drugs for elite athletes that wouldn't be detected, amongst other things. You can watch him on the Joe Rogan podcast explaining how simple it is to take steroids and get round the tests. The truth is that the IOC, NFL, rugby etc wouldn't benefit from a clean sport. Nobody wants to see smaller, slower athletes not breaking records that were made by juicers. Viewership would plummet followed by sponsors. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Complicated stuff anyone seen Icarus... ??
Also, I have heard quoted on either Eurosport of C4 that the use of inhalers is documented to be across 40% of pro cyclists.
As an inhaler is generally a treatment for respiratory conditions is it not odd that 40% of cyclists have respiratory conditions??
"
Actually there is a recognised link between endurance sport and asthma simply because of the extra pressure put on the lungs and respiratory systems.
Salbutamol in inhaler firm is also proven to not be performance enhancing. It's only when you get to the huge dose Froome tested for that their are issues. Draw your own conclusions as to how SKY and the UCI managed to show a test as flawed when others have served bans for lower amounts and no one other than Froome had ever encountered such anamolities. Also draw your own conclusions as to why Frome has come in for so much open criticism from his peers.
For done reason it reminds me of Armstrong's corticoid positive which saw him get a retrospective therapeutic use exemption around the same time he made a sizeable donation to the UCI |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What about team Sky's dodgy packages and dodgy doctors for sir Bradley
Not all cheaters get caught
I suspect the majority don't get caught. Which is the most worrying thing.
The rest aren't as hypocritical as team sky and their systematic cheating under brailsford
Team sky,Wiggins and froome all came from nowhere and have dominated in the dirtiest sport in the world and everybody bought it until they were exposed"
When SKY lunched the kit had a thin blue line running vertically down the back of the jersey. This was the moral line that they would never cross. But they have, as acknowledged in the parliamentary review blurred it to such an extent that they are viewed as hypocrites by many in cycling. They had medical sraff as dodgy as duck, they had Yates who is to clean cycling what the Sean Ryde is to clean living and other dubious staff. They have done what Armstrong did (granted not quite as odious as Armstrong using a cancer charity to self promote his saintly image) in creating a person's that they thought couldn't be challenged. And in all honesty if Sutton hadn't been a sexist bully who sacked Jess Varnish out of spite, he'd never have (allegedly) tipped off UKAD about the jiffy bag to take the heat off himself and SKY would no doubt still try and claim the moral high ground.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The other thing about cycling is Valerde. He's 39. He suffered a career threatening injury last year. I suspect hell win the Vuelta today. He was up there in the tour. He wins one day races at ease (probably the only tour contender to do so), and absolutely no one in the sport points out that he is a convicted doper whose performances defy logic. He has somehow defied age and is riding better than when he was blood doping with the the known benefits that brings.
And no one within the sport says a word. No one objects to being beaten by him. That sums up how fucked up cycling is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
"
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us.... "
You're too busy waving your flag to see that froome is in a cheating doping team with doper doctors with other doping British riders ie wiggins |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us.... "
Out of interest, how do you explain that the current 'clean' generation of riders are producing power figures that match and exceed riders from the 90s who were doped to the gills? And are riding up mountains as fast? Because neither of those are down to aerodynamic improvements. And EPO literally (as highlighted by Bjarne Ris) literally turned donkeys in to tour winners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The other thing about cycling is Valerde. He's 39. He suffered a career threatening injury last year. I suspect hell win the Vuelta today. He was up there in the tour. He wins one day races at ease (probably the only tour contender to do so), and absolutely no one in the sport points out that he is a convicted doper whose performances defy logic. He has somehow defied age and is riding better than when he was blood doping with the the known benefits that brings.
And no one within the sport says a word. No one objects to being beaten by him. That sums up how fucked up cycling is"
I don’t trust Valverde, he’s one of the few left from the Armstrong era. I’m very suspicious how he’s still able to compete, he’s been banned for blood doping, he’s got previous.
But he struggled on yesterday’s stage and Yates looked good, I tipped Yates to win before the tour started, barring a mechanical or crashing he should.
The sooner Valverde retires the better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us....
Out of interest, how do you explain that the current 'clean' generation of riders are producing power figures that match and exceed riders from the 90s who were doped to the gills? And are riding up mountains as fast? Because neither of those are down to aerodynamic improvements. And EPO literally (as highlighted by Bjarne Ris) literally turned donkeys in to tour winners. "
Just out of interest you know that in this years Tour, they were 4 minutes slower up Alpe d’huez , compared to the EPO Tours, this years time wouldn’t even have got in the top 100.
As for Riis he had a blood hematocrit of over 60%, the limit being 50, it was an complete joke watching a bloke his size flying up mountains in the big ring ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Spend enough time around professional or semi professional athletes of any sport, and you’ll find that drugs in sport is a lot more prominent and accepted than the general public would like to believe.
You think these guys are running sub 10 second 100m’s on talent and chicken breasts? Then You’re very much mistaken. And the testing is increadibly easy to get around if you know what you’re doing.
Is it “right” no, I don’t think it is. But it happens and you’re not going to change it.
It’s not just sport though. Performance enhancing drugs are used in many professions, it’s just some are more acceptable than others. Don’t see an outcry about porn stars using viagra for example? How about a musician using beta blockers in order to stay calm during a symphony?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All elite athletes take advantage of anything they can get that is within the rules that they perceive will give them a performance enhancement. Team sky/team GB cycling/Dave brailsford have always talked about an aggregation of marginal gains. The sum of many tiny advantages making up more than one big one. This includes diets, supplements, equipment and training advantages.
Some of these techniques may not currently fall outside rules as the laws tend to reflect practice rather than predict technological future advances.
Froome, was presumed guilty of a drugs error, rather than a confirmed ingestion of a banned susbstance.
He was subsequently cleared as it was argued that he wouldn’t have got an enhanced performance as a result. His argument is that he needs salbutamol to compete as an equal to those who don’t have asthma, so his use of salbutamol within the clinical norms is justified.
Could it cause weight loss? Possible but unlikely. As posters have discussed what makes you win a stage race is power to weight ratio. Increase one or decrease the other to win. Certainly it’s unlikely to have hindered him.
My own personal feeling is that it leaves a bad taste after his comments about Bradley wiggins, a rider who never failed a drugs test, or any other form of doping violation throughout his entire career. Having a TUE cert. for a drug which wiggins claimed also only levelled the playing field is certainly no worse than Froome. The fact that his (Froome’s) wife works for sky makes it look worse.
Several posters have asked why an increased percentage of riders at pro level seem to have respiratory problems..
A normal person breathes about 7 litres of air a minute. A pro athlete can breath in and out over 250 litres of air a minute. This combined with the fact that the air is breathed through the mouth rather than the nose during heavy exercise means that far more allergic particles are inhaled. In addition this air is subject to much lower filtration and humidification meaning the potential detrimental effects are much worsened.
Comparisons with the Armstrong/Riis era are no where near the mark. Cycling is much safer and cleaner now than it ever had been. Yes, a minority will obviously look to overstep the mark, but as mentioned the drugs are less dangerous, and less prevalent than in rugby/powerlifting/sprinting. In any case, and thank goodness, the days of riders administering blood transfusions to one another in the back of a bus are long gone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The other thing about cycling is Valerde. He's 39. He suffered a career threatening injury last year. I suspect hell win the Vuelta today. He was up there in the tour. He wins one day races at ease (probably the only tour contender to do so), and absolutely no one in the sport points out that he is a convicted doper whose performances defy logic. He has somehow defied age and is riding better than when he was blood doping with the the known benefits that brings.
And no one within the sport says a word. No one objects to being beaten by him. That sums up how fucked up cycling is
I don’t trust Valverde, he’s one of the few left from the Armstrong era. I’m very suspicious how he’s still able to compete, he’s been banned for blood doping, he’s got previous.
But he struggled on yesterday’s stage and Yates looked good, I tipped Yates to win before the tour started, barring a mechanical or crashing he should.
The sooner Valverde retires the better. "
Disagree on Valverde. Massively underrated rider. A true racer who can win in so many different ways. Wasted the last 5 years riding as a domestique to Quintana, who has always flattered to deceive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"All elite athletes take advantage of anything they can get that is within the rules that they perceive will give them a performance enhancement. Team sky/team GB cycling/Dave brailsford have always talked about an aggregation of marginal gains. The sum of many tiny advantages making up more than one big one. This includes diets, supplements, equipment and training advantages.
Some of these techniques may not currently fall outside rules as the laws tend to reflect practice rather than predict technological future advances.
Froome, was presumed guilty of a drugs error, rather than a confirmed ingestion of a banned susbstance.
He was subsequently cleared as it was argued that he wouldn’t have got an enhanced performance as a result. His argument is that he needs salbutamol to compete as an equal to those who don’t have asthma, so his use of salbutamol within the clinical norms is justified.
Could it cause weight loss? Possible but unlikely. As posters have discussed what makes you win a stage race is power to weight ratio. Increase one or decrease the other to win. Certainly it’s unlikely to have hindered him.
My own personal feeling is that it leaves a bad taste after his comments about Bradley wiggins, a rider who never failed a drugs test, or any other form of doping violation throughout his entire career. Having a TUE cert. for a drug which wiggins claimed also only levelled the playing field is certainly no worse than Froome. The fact that his (Froome’s) wife works for sky makes it look worse.
Several posters have asked why an increased percentage of riders at pro level seem to have respiratory problems..
A normal person breathes about 7 litres of air a minute. A pro athlete can breath in and out over 250 litres of air a minute. This combined with the fact that the air is breathed through the mouth rather than the nose during heavy exercise means that far more allergic particles are inhaled. In addition this air is subject to much lower filtration and humidification meaning the potential detrimental effects are much worsened.
Comparisons with the Armstrong/Riis era are no where near the mark. Cycling is much safer and cleaner now than it ever had been. Yes, a minority will obviously look to overstep the mark, but as mentioned the drugs are less dangerous, and less prevalent than in rugby/powerlifting/sprinting. In any case, and thank goodness, the days of riders administering blood transfusions to one another in the back of a bus are long gone."
The days of employees driving dodgy drug packages quietly through borders aren't long gone tho.
Hypocritical cheaters |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us....
You're too busy waving your flag to see that froome is in a cheating doping team with doper doctors with other doping British riders ie wiggins "
And your evidence for traducing a brilliant athlete is where exactly? Oh wait you have none... All you have is the 'Social Media' conspiracy theories and fake news.
You prove my point wonderfully but I doubt the irony will even register with you
And I, unlike you and the rest of the PC generation, have no qualms or fears about 'waving my flag'. I do it with pride. After all I served 15 years proudly bearing it .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us....
You're too busy waving your flag to see that froome is in a cheating doping team with doper doctors with other doping British riders ie wiggins
And your evidence for traducing a brilliant athlete is where exactly? Oh wait you have none... All you have is the 'Social Media' conspiracy theories and fake news.
You prove my point wonderfully but I doubt the irony will even register with you
And I, unlike you and the rest of the PC generation, have no qualms or fears about 'waving my flag'. I do it with pride. After all I served 15 years proudly bearing it ...."
If you don't know the evidence against team sky and wiggins already in the public domain because of government inquiries then you shouldn't be commenting.
Fake news indeed. You sound like that other flag waving moron |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The other thing about cycling is Valerde. He's 39. He suffered a career threatening injury last year. I suspect hell win the Vuelta today. He was up there in the tour. He wins one day races at ease (probably the only tour contender to do so), and absolutely no one in the sport points out that he is a convicted doper whose performances defy logic. He has somehow defied age and is riding better than when he was blood doping with the the known benefits that brings.
And no one within the sport says a word. No one objects to being beaten by him. That sums up how fucked up cycling is
I don’t trust Valverde, he’s one of the few left from the Armstrong era. I’m very suspicious how he’s still able to compete, he’s been banned for blood doping, he’s got previous.
But he struggled on yesterday’s stage and Yates looked good, I tipped Yates to win before the tour started, barring a mechanical or crashing he should.
The sooner Valverde retires the better.
Disagree on Valverde. Massively underrated rider. A true racer who can win in so many different ways. Wasted the last 5 years riding as a domestique to Quintana, who has always flattered to deceive "
How exactly is he underrated, you know he’s a convicted blood doper don’t you ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'd be generally suspicious of a sports player who has used a treatment known to potentially give an advantage. There are honest players and some will have health issues but I think that systems have to be in place, to help limit potential coincidental surprises, when they are tested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us....
You're too busy waving your flag to see that froome is in a cheating doping team with doper doctors with other doping British riders ie wiggins
And your evidence for traducing a brilliant athlete is where exactly? Oh wait you have none... All you have is the 'Social Media' conspiracy theories and fake news.
You prove my point wonderfully but I doubt the irony will even register with you
And I, unlike you and the rest of the PC generation, have no qualms or fears about 'waving my flag'. I do it with pride. After all I served 15 years proudly bearing it ....
If you don't know the evidence against team sky and wiggins already in the public domain because of government inquiries then you shouldn't be commenting.
Fake news indeed. You sound like that other flag waving moron "
And like all so called 'experts' who have no evidence you call someone who states the obvious (as in he is innocent until proven guilty) a 'moron'.
Resort to personal abuse and you have lost the argument as well as all respect Old Son ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
" So my question is do you really believe sports people when they have an alibi?
You deliberately ask a loaded question with the added negative of an 'alibi' inferring guilt to suit your preconceived view. So why ask it? But having done so I will respond:
Froome was, is and will be innocent until proven guilty by those in power and have the knowledge to make a decision. The fact 'people' on Social Media peddle the alternative does not make it true. Sadly we now live in a society where the mob decides our values and justice. Its utterly appalling to slander 'by inference' a man (in deed anyone) who has dedicated himself to achieving the highest levels of his chosen sport. He has achieved world status in highly regulated and fair competition and beaten the best and in doing so has represented his (my) country with complete honour and humility.
OP when YOU can do a tenth of what this man can do then maybe get back to us....
You're too busy waving your flag to see that froome is in a cheating doping team with doper doctors with other doping British riders ie wiggins
And your evidence for traducing a brilliant athlete is where exactly? Oh wait you have none... All you have is the 'Social Media' conspiracy theories and fake news.
You prove my point wonderfully but I doubt the irony will even register with you
And I, unlike you and the rest of the PC generation, have no qualms or fears about 'waving my flag'. I do it with pride. After all I served 15 years proudly bearing it ....
If you don't know the evidence against team sky and wiggins already in the public domain because of government inquiries then you shouldn't be commenting.
Fake news indeed. You sound like that other flag waving moron
And like all so called 'experts' who have no evidence you call someone who states the obvious (as in he is innocent until proven guilty) a 'moron'.
Resort to personal abuse and you have lost the argument as well as all respect Old Son ... "
Stay dillusional all you want
The rest of the world knows he's a cheat and doper |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Let’s just leave it at this ....
Armstrong NEVER failed 1 test!! Other than 1 time when a Retrospective prescription soon fixed it.
That says everything about the testing regime and the efforts to outwhit the system
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let’s just leave it at this ....
Armstrong NEVER failed 1 test!! Other than 1 time when a Retrospective prescription soon fixed it.
That says everything about the testing regime and the efforts to outwhit the system
"
Yeah, cause the testing regime is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Do you honestly think that the technology is still the same, also then riders couldn’t be tested between 10pm - 7 am, so hey guess when they were doing all the shit they needed to do. Where as now, riders can be tested 24/7, 365 days of the year. Things are very different.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"Let’s just leave it at this ....
Armstrong NEVER failed 1 test!! Other than 1 time when a Retrospective prescription soon fixed it.
That says everything about the testing regime and the efforts to outwhit the system
Yeah, cause the testing regime is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Do you honestly think that the technology is still the same, also then riders couldn’t be tested between 10pm - 7 am, so hey guess when they were doing all the shit they needed to do. Where as now, riders can be tested 24/7, 365 days of the year. Things are very different.
"
Well how come with those 24/7 365 day tests they didn't pick up on whatever sir Bradley took from his bag of goodies or any of the dozen times MPs said he took those inhalers without TUE?
Tests picked up nothing it was whistleblowers or we would be none the wiser |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The levels over the permitted dose that Froome's tests returned MAY at best have given him a marginal gain over a sprint. They would had had no performance gain over a long endurance cycling event.
Cycling has come a long way since the dark days of routine systematic doping that most teams and riders were guilty of.
There is still a problem in both football and rugby, with league being the biggest |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"The levels over the permitted dose that Froome's tests returned MAY at best have given him a marginal gain over a sprint. They would had had no performance gain over a long endurance cycling event.
Cycling has come a long way since the dark days of routine systematic doping that most teams and riders were guilty of.
There is still a problem in both football and rugby, with league being the biggest"
"Marginal gains" you sound like brailsford
Its how those marginal gains were got is the question
Team sky is still systematically cheating and doping
Why else do they use doping doctors if not to dope?
Jiffy bags smuggled over borders and teams still using doctors who specialize in doping,cycling has come a long way alright
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The levels over the permitted dose that Froome's tests returned MAY at best have given him a marginal gain over a sprint. They would had had no performance gain over a long endurance cycling event.
Cycling has come a long way since the dark days of routine systematic doping that most teams and riders were guilty of.
There is still a problem in both football and rugby, with league being the biggest
"Marginal gains" you sound like brailsford
Its how those marginal gains were got is the question
Team sky is still systematically cheating and doping
Why else do they use doping doctors if not to dope?
Jiffy bags smuggled over borders and teams still using doctors who specialize in doping,cycling has come a long way alright
"
Marginal gains is the argument rugby uses! Yeah, the players just have a lot of marginal gains, usually in a syringe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I remember years ago when I turned up at my first international event, a doctor warning me the sports drinks I was toting risked putting me over the limit for caffeine (no longer on the banned list). Or waiting to produce a sample and having team mates hand over a few cans of beer to speed up the process...
The fact is any athlete competing at the highest level is trying to carve out an advantage over his opponents. Either by training harder, or better, by honing appropriate skills and equipment. Everyone is looking for an edge. It's what performance sport is. Now it can be as simple as a new technique -remember my mother commenting on Dick Fosbury in Mexico.... "is he allowed to jump like that?". Google it if this means nothing!
The reality today is that due to the 'professionalisation' of sport there are massive financial incentives to win. UK Sport funding linked to medal performance?
Sports nutrition is big business, and any athlete today is looking at what (hopefully legal) supplements might help. Lets face it, the vast majority of the population are happy to take vitamin tablets on a regular basis even though for most there's absolutely no point. Big business.
Why would you not lets say...take Kelp tablets if you thought they'd make you lift more? The lines rapidly become blurred.
Certainly testing has made life much harder for drugs cheats. And I'm sure in the types of sports where drugs have always had the most impact the open use of drugs has been greatly reduced compared to the 'old' days.
From experience the use of inhalers has risen hugely in recent years -a worrying trend. Whether this reflects the increased use by the general population I don't know.
But to believe that doping is not part of modern performance sport is being naive. If you take a performance enhancing drug that is so new it's not on the banned list it's still doping in my view. All we can hope for is that the will is there to continue with more aggressive independent testing.
More worrying possibly, is way some of these drugs are making their way down the chain. The gym bunnies who are not remotely interested in performance sport but see them as a short cut to improved body image. For them, no risk of testing positive so no protection at all in terms of health risk monitoring.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let’s just leave it at this ....
Armstrong NEVER failed 1 test!! Other than 1 time when a Retrospective prescription soon fixed it.
That says everything about the testing regime and the efforts to outwhit the system
Yeah, cause the testing regime is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Do you honestly think that the technology is still the same, also then riders couldn’t be tested between 10pm - 7 am, so hey guess when they were doing all the shit they needed to do. Where as now, riders can be tested 24/7, 365 days of the year. Things are very different.
Well how come with those 24/7 365 day tests they didn't pick up on whatever sir Bradley took from his bag of goodies or any of the dozen times MPs said he took those inhalers without TUE?
Tests picked up nothing it was whistleblowers or we would be none the wiser"
You don’t need TUE’s for inhalers, you need it for the injections, which he had. I’m not a fan of Wiggins and I don’t agree with what he did,it was cynical and is explanation didn’t clear up, why he felt the need to take them before grand tours, just to clarify Froome turned this down, didn’t want to go down that road. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
" just to clarify Froome turned this down, didn’t want to go down that road. "
You may believe froome turned it down but its a leap of faith too much for me
Here we have another dominating asthmatic champion in a exposed cheating team following on from the previous cheating team leader talking about marginal gains.
No one is buying that anymore |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" just to clarify Froome turned this down, didn’t want to go down that road.
You may believe froome turned it down but its a leap of faith too much for me
Here we have another dominating asthmatic champion in a exposed cheating team following on from the previous cheating team leader talking about marginal gains.
No one is buying that anymore"
Yadda yadda |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The levels over the permitted dose that Froome's tests returned MAY at best have given him a marginal gain over a sprint. They would had had no performance gain over a long endurance cycling event.
Cycling has come a long way since the dark days of routine systematic doping that most teams and riders were guilty of.
There is still a problem in both football and rugby, with league being the biggest
"Marginal gains" you sound like brailsford
Its how those marginal gains were got is the question
Team sky is still systematically cheating and doping
Why else do they use doping doctors if not to dope?
Jiffy bags smuggled over borders and teams still using doctors who specialize in doping,cycling has come a long way alright
Marginal gains is the argument rugby uses! Yeah, the players just have a lot of marginal gains, usually in a syringe "
Marginal Gains are training regimens, diets and supplements that together work to improve performance. Use these marginal gains in different areas they produce a rounded improvement.
Look at how the TDF times fell after the big clean up, they are starting to rise because of improvements in sports science.
Team Sky are not cheats; the public profile of the Sky Business and potential damage to Sky's reputation means they wouldn't risk it.
Brailsford just brought a different philosophy into sport, and it's one that's being adopted into many different sports; the 2018 England World Cup squad is one.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
For fucks sake boys cycling has come an awfully long way from the rotten state it was in but arguing that it’s not a real win if one dopes is bollocks. The difference these days is that it’s a bit more scientific and hopefully slightly safer. The big problem about all of this is that it hands the wins to the best funded and most organised teams in much the same way as F1 does with motorsport leading to the creation of an elite level that very few people could hope to join without the drugs. It’s all about the money! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"The levels over the permitted dose that Froome's tests returned MAY at best have given him a marginal gain over a sprint. They would had had no performance gain over a long endurance cycling event.
Cycling has come a long way since the dark days of routine systematic doping that most teams and riders were guilty of.
There is still a problem in both football and rugby, with league being the biggest
"Marginal gains" you sound like brailsford
Its how those marginal gains were got is the question
Team sky is still systematically cheating and doping
Why else do they use doping doctors if not to dope?
Jiffy bags smuggled over borders and teams still using doctors who specialize in doping,cycling has come a long way alright
Marginal gains is the argument rugby uses! Yeah, the players just have a lot of marginal gains, usually in a syringe
Marginal Gains are training regimens, diets and supplements that together work to improve performance. Use these marginal gains in different areas they produce a rounded improvement.
Look at how the TDF times fell after the big clean up, they are starting to rise because of improvements in sports science.
Team Sky are not cheats; the public profile of the Sky Business and potential damage to Sky's reputation means they wouldn't risk it.
Brailsford just brought a different philosophy into sport, and it's one that's being adopted into many different sports; the 2018 England World Cup squad is one.
"
Marginal gains through jiffy bags of PEDs smuggled in by sky team employees more like
Explain the jiffy bag because no one at sky could
Why hire doctors who's speciality is doping in cycling?
The only problem with those testosterone patches they ordered is that they came in through the front door with legit supplies and not the back door with the rest of the juice also it got official registered
If froome Wiggins and sky weren't English this wouldn't even be a conversation it would be a given that they are dopers
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let’s just leave it at this ....
Armstrong NEVER failed 1 test!! Other than 1 time when a Retrospective prescription soon fixed it.
That says everything about the testing regime and the efforts to outwhit the system
Yeah, cause the testing regime is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Do you honestly think that the technology is still the same, also then riders couldn’t be tested between 10pm - 7 am, so hey guess when they were doing all the shit they needed to do. Where as now, riders can be tested 24/7, 365 days of the year. Things are very different.
Well how come with those 24/7 365 day tests they didn't pick up on whatever sir Bradley took from his bag of goodies or any of the dozen times MPs said he took those inhalers without TUE?
Tests picked up nothing it was whistleblowers or we would be none the wiser
You don’t need TUE’s for inhalers, you need it for the injections, which he had. I’m not a fan of Wiggins and I don’t agree with what he did,it was cynical and is explanation didn’t clear up, why he felt the need to take them before grand tours, just to clarify Froome turned this down, didn’t want to go down that road. "
Actually, to be a pedant you DO need a TUE for some inhalors, just not salbutamol.
It was inhalor use that got Simon Yates a 4 month ban for terbutaline after his team messed up his TUE paperwork and he tested positive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For fucks sake boys cycling has come an awfully long way from the rotten state it was in but arguing that it’s not a real win if one dopes is bollocks. The difference these days is that it’s a bit more scientific and hopefully slightly safer. The big problem about all of this is that it hands the wins to the best funded and most organised teams in much the same way as F1 does with motorsport leading to the creation of an elite level that very few people could hope to join without the drugs. It’s all about the money!"
And cycnically, that lack of money is why positives in the protour are very rare but more common at lower levels |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Honestly some people on here need to read the summaries of the parliamentary review in to SKY/BC because the conclusions were pretty damning to say the least. SKY lost almost an awful lot of credibility |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago
Paisley |
My Mum always had her doubts about Linford Christie as he couldn’t give an address for 3 years for the testers to visit him.
Let’s flip this on its head. Let them all take as many drugs as they want, do away with testing and see who survives. Let them kill themselves from overdoses or get ill from kidney or liver failure. Yes I’d prefer sport to be clean but people are making money out of creating these drugs and masking them. If they didn’t need to mask the drugs then there would be no need to create them removing the market for them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Honestly some people on here need to read the summaries of the parliamentary review in to SKY/BC because the conclusions were pretty damning to say the least. SKY lost almost an awful lot of credibility"
Don’t believe the hype, it’s a sequel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Honestly some people on here need to read the summaries of the parliamentary review in to SKY/BC because the conclusions were pretty damning to say the least. SKY lost almost an awful lot of credibility
Don’t believe the hype, it’s a sequel. "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081
So the review that claimed SKY/BC "crossed an ethical line" you are just dismissing that? An investigation that went on for months, that found SKY didn;t keep records, that the team management were apparently unaware of the medical care it's riders received, that suggested tramadol was routinely abused (their words not mine) and that was all as an aside to the initial allegations and Froome's positive, that;s just hype is it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
