Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[smutchin]

I remain to be convinced that Lappartient has any more of a backbone than Cookson.

 

[Foghat]

Indeed - Lappartient's backbone is probably largely determined by:

1. in relation to Sky's TUEs, the potentially enormous financial exposure associated with the UCI's limited resources taking on the Murdoch machine and its recourse to expensive legal might; and,
2. more generally, the balance of power within procycling residing with ASO.

 

[Siclo]

Graeme Obree's thoughts

He is reasonable and considered on the debate surrounding Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome, British winners of the Tour de France. Wiggins has been assailed by questions over the ethics of his therapeutic use exemptions and Froome has registered an abnormally high reading for salbutamol after using an inhaler to treat asthma.

'There is something I will defend to the very end,' says Obree. 'It is the principle of the Magna Carta. A man will be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by his peers. Has that happened with them? I will not condemn them. I will not judge them until that occurs.' He is similarly forgiving on Lance Armstrong, a winner of seven successive Tours de France before all were wiped from the records because of doping defences.

'The lesson of Lance Armstrong? There is never enough. If he had stopped after six Tour wins, he would most likely not have been caught. But he had to come back. He could not stop,' adds Obree.

'I feel sorry for him. I see his restlessness, his discontent. He is now on the starting lines of triathlons. That feeling of achievement has gone and he is chasing it again.'​

He's someone I have huge respect for as an engineer, innovator and athlete but this raises some interesting points.

Court of criminal law - Burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt.

Civil Law - Balance of probabilities

Anti-doping - Who knows? There's no definition. Speculation will always be rife and anti-doping a standing joke until this is addressed. They need to stop making it up as they go to suit a political or corporate agenda

Jury of Peers - Fortunately this will never apply. Can you really see Ulrich, Rasmussen, Zabel et al condemning Lance? Heck, Wiggo was recently posting pictures of himself wearing a Motorola rainbow bands jersey, I'm not sure what that says. Not much different from juries of motorists and dangerous driving.

The system is still broken.

 

[smutchin]

As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.

 

[hoopdriver]

As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.

Oh, the King John thing. I get it now. I thought the Magna Carta was one of the spring classics...

 

[smutchin]

I thought the Magna Carta was one of the spring classics

 

[rich p]

As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

 

[Foghat]

As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.

Quite.

Assuming what @Dogtrousers posted is the extent of Obree's pronouncements on this, it's preposterous that some people need a court of law to tell them whether or not they're being bull$h1tted.

Is Obree's bull$h1t detector so ineffective that he cannot see: how Wiggins's written and interview statements are completely irreconcilable with a non-fraudulent valid rule-complying basis for his TUE applications; that Wiggins's own pre-prepared best effort at a justification for the applications ("levelling the playing field") doesn't meet either of the two principal mandatory criteria options open to him (emergency or exceptional circumstances); or how his lies about injections have been proven to be lies (pathetic excuses notwithstanding).

Can Obree really not recognise: the endless stream of bull$h1t and insincerity emanating from Brailsford; the enormous catalogue of malpractice revelations and his ridiculous excuses; Brailsford's utter failure to comply with his own lofty claims of propriety and zero tolerance, which were publicly and volubly touted by him to be the cornerstone of Sky's ethos but have been shot down in flames as complete garbage?

Does Obree really not understand what the whistleblower's testimony shows, or that one of the main perpetrators of Sky's scamming, well known for his own misuse of PEDs, admits it was unethical?

What about recognising that Froome has actually been found with double the allowed limit for salbutamol, and that by his own admission he and his doctor decided it was sensible to start dicking around with extra doses to protect his lead rather than opting not to run the risk of elevated dosing causing an adverse result and an associated ban in line with others who overdosed on it, not to mention being disqualified from the race result?

And is that the best he can do on the key lessons to be learned from Armstrong? How about recognising that Armstrong wilfully misled and exploited millions of cancer sufferers, and sued, threatened, bullied, intimidated and deliberately ruined the careers and business interests of innocent people. Rather than opting to concentrate on his concern for Armstrong, how about telling us what the important lessons to be learned from that outrageous repertoire of bad behaviour are......and it's not that "there is never enough", that's for sure.

Spectacularly missing the point, much like Redgrave did. Very poor show from Obree.....hopefully he's said something more sensible on the subject somewhere, but I can't say I'm inclined to try to find it.

 

[Bollo]

The article doesn’t quite deliver on the headline, but ASO may be getting the hump with Froome. Is this largely symbolic though given Froome’s Giro focus this year?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21/chris-froome-tour-de-france-race-oragnisers-aso

 

[mjr]

The article doesn’t quite deliver on the headline, but ASO may be getting the hump with Froome. Is this largely symbolic though given Froome’s Giro focus this year?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21/chris-froome-tour-de-france-race-oragnisers-aso

I don't think so. I'm sure Froome wants five wins and the clock's ticking... but ASO got away with a similar stunt in 2006. I think Sky has more money than the teams affected back then, but would they have enough time to take it through the courts and make it stick? In 2006, I think the ASO bans were only a day or two before the race.

 

[smutchin]

Blimey, 2006, that was a year... Are there any stages to Morzine this year where Froome can stick it to ASO?

 

[mjr]

The Outer Line: Can science rescue Chris Froome? http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-can-science-rescue-chris-froome_460424 "Dr. Bill Apollo ... examines the Chris Froome controversy from a medical perspective, and concludes that it is unlikely to end well for Froome."

 

[Crackle]

The Outer Line: Can science rescue Chris Froome? http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-can-science-rescue-chris-froome_460424 "Dr. Bill Apollo ... examines the Chris Froome controversy from a medical perspective, and concludes that it is unlikely to end well for Froome."

That's put a rocket up his jacksie.................

........yeh I know; I got nothing else.....

 

[smutchin]

I find the Froome salbutamol case puzzling. To get caught with that much salbutamol in his system is a real schoolboy error - from that velonews piece, it seems it can only possibly be explained by Froome having taken a single massive dose of salbutamol, probably as a pill rather than from a puffer. But why on earth would he do that? I can't help feeling there's more to the story than has yet been revealed.

The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.

 

[Crackle]

Well if that article is correct and it reads like it might be, he's stuffed and is never destined to win the Vuelta.