Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by Joffey, 15 Sep 2016.
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?
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.
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?
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.
Blimey, 2006, that was a year... Are there any stages to Morzine this year where Froome can stick it to ASO?
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.....
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.
Well if that article is correct and it reads like it might be, he's stuffed and is never destined to win the Vuelta.
I wonder if they might be planning to do the defence lab test after the Giro, or possibly even during it if Froome's out of contention. Much has been written about the difficulty of replicating Grand Tour conditions... so they could use an actual Grand Tour.
Maybe, but Dr Bill suggests they would probably be better off avoiding a pharmokinetic study since it's extremely unlikely to give them the result they want, even if they can recreate the conditions accurately.
As @Crackle says, it looks like he's stuffed. All the team are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable.
The main omission I see in the article is whether Froome's couple of years with bilharzia might have messed up his kidneys, which was mentioned earlier on some site called cyclechat.
Their arms. Sorry. IGMC.
Interesting article. I liked the 'hors categorie' jibe at the end.
The UCI's lawyers must be fairly confident on this case, given the groundwork already done on previous Salbutamol cases. And ASO's position and pronouncements will be a reasonably accurate barometer of both that and its own lawyers' confidence......the latest from ASO confirms my earlier deduction that Prudhomme now firmly sees Froome's Tour participation as a liability rather than an asset.....and sufficiently so to be able to take on the waning Sky/Murdoch procycling power in the legal arena.
What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.
Well, that sounds like just the kind of bullshit excuse Sky might try on, but if that's the explanation, why is this the one and only occasion that he's been caught out by it? If he was only sightly over the limit, it might sound plausible, but it's double the limit.
Separate names with a comma.