Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[SheilaH]

You need to check you understand what the word 'conflate' means before you accuse me of "crass stupidity"

Curiously, though, the stink over Wiggins's hidden TUEs and his mystery package have taken the heat off Froome, even though his performances per se are far more unbelievable than Wiggins's.

.......because there is no conflation going on here. Quite the opposite in fact. Still, there is no accounting for one's readers' reading comprehension.

Quite how you think the issues raised in my posts have been discussed 'many many times' when they are off the back of recent events (the hearing was barely a little more than a week ago ) is beyond me, but I can see from your final comment that you are very keen to shut this discussion down.

Of course, that isn't up to you, its up to the rest of us. The only control you have over this is whether you choose to contribute. Given that you have absolutely nothing to contribute beyond assumptions ("an innocuous substance"...nobody, least of all the MPs bought that one, which is why they have asked for documentary proof) your decision to withdraw from this thread is a good one

 

[coldash]

Of course, that isn't up to you, its up to the rest of us. The only control you have over this is whether you choose to contribute. Given that you have absolutely nothing to contribute beyond assumptions ("an innocuous substance"...nobody, least of all the MPs bought that one, which is why they have asked for documentary proof) your decision to withdraw from this thread is a good one

Not sure who "we" and "the rest of us" are but it might help if you named who you believe on the BC and Sky squads from, say 2009 onwards were on the juice including the track teams. For the time being, you can ignore known TUEs

 

[SheilaH]

Im not sure who "we" are either, since there is no "we" in the post you quote.

Not sure why you cant understand what "the rest of us" means.I would have thought it blatantly obvious that itvrefers to all those who wish to post on this thread.

Not sure either why you are now inviting me to speculate. Im not interested in that. Im interested in facts.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

@rich p 's Christmas presents

 

[Viking]

On a more general point I found it interesting that, AIUI, apart from UKAD and WADA (and UCI, BC?) only the team doctor and the rider knew/knows about the TUEs or any other medication unless the rider chose/chooses to share that information. This is attributed to the doctor – patient confidentiality relationship. Although I believe that this information is now discussed/ratified by a pool of medical people within the team, that only extends the doctor part to doctors. How then can any team principal, of any team, state that their team is clean when there is a vital part of the audit trail required to justify this statement not within their remit or control.

This is not (just) a Sky point nor just a TUE issue (where there is independent involvement) but extends to any jurisdiction where the doctor – patient confidentiality relationship over-rules all else.

An independent third party might be the answer. WADA is one possibility (but they have their plate full at present) but not a national anti-doping agency given recent history. However, it looks like a huge and uncontrolled exposure in the overall governance. If I’ve got this wrong and there is an independent control, I’m happy to be corrected.

And, to repeat this is not directed at any specific team or individual or indeed sport.

 

[coldash]

Not sure either why you are now inviting me to speculate. Im not interested in that. Im interested in facts.

Oh gone on. Elaborate on the Froome's unbelievable performance stuff you mentioned earlier. I'm interested in the underlying facts that you used. Do you think malpractice is team-wide or limited to some individuals

 

[oldroadman]

All very interesting. What popped out at me was that people are suggesting that the MPs are in the slightest interested in the allegaed subject, or have any knowledge of it, or have done any research. What they are good at is grandstanding and being "look at us a powerful select committee" giving people a hard time. Now there may or may not be something amiss, but I'm content to wait until a report if published to find out what WADA/UKAD know (if they know anything worth publishing). I watched the hearing online, The BC directors (all unpaid volunteers) were roasted by what looked like a backside cover by UKAD. I doubt the truth of what UKAD did will ever be verified. The people on the money were different. SS gave back as good as he got. DB fronted up on the package contents. Just remember this was 2011 not last season! BC and Sky pro team now appear to be very disconnected, operate as separate entities, and I guess after 31 December will be totally apart. HSBC won't want any part of the past, they have even more money than Sky I suspect, and will use it to leverage every last bit of high quality corporate PR out of the deal. In a year's time it will all be old news, then people can get back to what they seem to like, knocking the decent people who volunteer at board level about their particular fantasy.
Anyway if MPs REALLY want to look into sport and doping, they might look at the UKAD list and ask to see the RFU, LTA, British Athletics, the weightlifting NGB. All of whom have people on the list and are hardly high profile in rooting out the problem. Credit to BC for that, dirty linen washed in public without any inhibition. Or would people prefer it was all done quietly with riders being "injured" like players in certain other sports?

 

[rich p]

@rich p 's Christmas presents

Piss off ya scotch git.

Am I right in thinking that Kenny Elissonde will be Murdoch black next season?

 

[SheilaH]

Oh gone on. Elaborate on the Froome's unbelievable performance stuff you mentioned earlier

Let's remind ourselves of what I said...

Curiously, though, the stink over Wiggins's hidden TUEs and his mystery package have taken the heat off Froome, even though his performances per se are far more unbelievable than Wiggins's.

And you'd like me to answer this...

.

I'm interested in the underlying facts that you used. Do you think malpractice is team-wide or limited to some individuals

'Unbelievable' means that I do not believe it. It doesn't mean that there needs to be a body of facts to underpin this belief (ask any Christian). However, there is a rationale, and that rationale is that Froome's progress as a rider does not, on the whole, mirror that of other previous Tour winners. Other previous Tour winners have on the whole displayed their innate talent through prodigious victories from an early age, and major victories as a pro. Froome did not. In fact Froome was very much in the lower half of peloton talent, a rider who's palmares were unremarkable. Froome had no pedigree. In fact, it would be fair to say that a whole backstory has been put out that seeks to explain Froome's lack of pedigree (lost white boy in Africa pedalling through the jungle with undiagnosed Bilhazia bla bla bla) Froome went from a peloton nobody to a GT podium rider in one step. Not a progressive rise, but one step. It is arguable that he may have been higher up on that podium in Spain '11 had he not been riding for Wiggins, just as it is arguable that he may have won the '12 Tour had he been team captain.

So who does this rise from nobody to world beater look like? It looks like riders like Ricco. Do I find this believable? No I dont. How is he doing it? I wouldnt like to speculate, but I struggle to believe that it is a natural transformation. Is this a radical view? No I dont think it is. I think you'll find the sports writer, Paul Kimmage, has been saying much the same.

How does this relate to the thread? In exactly the way I said it did. In terms of the TUE scandal, Froome has come out of it rather well.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Other previous Tour winners have on the whole displayed their innate talent through prodigious victories from an early age, and major victories as a pro.

Apart from Armstrong, not that he has any Tour victories...although there are very few Tour winners who have been clean or without suspicion. There cannot be many - Evans? LeMond? Sastre? Wiggins? Froome?

 

[SheilaH]

Indeed. In the context of winning Tours, its a little odd that people start screaming blue murder when one points out that Froome might, in one respect, be just like previous Tour winners

 

[coldash]

Let's remind ourselves of what I said...



And you'd like me to answer this...

.

'Unbelievable' means that I do not believe it. It doesn't mean that there needs to be a body of facts to underpin this belief (ask any Christian). However, there is a rationale, and that rationale is that Froome's progress as a rider does not, on the whole, mirror that of other previous Tour winners. Other previous Tour winners have on the whole displayed their innate talent through prodigious victories from an early age, and major victories as a pro. Froome did not. In fact Froome was very much in the lower half of peloton talent, a rider who's palmares were unremarkable. Froome had no pedigree. In fact, it would be fair to say that a whole backstory has been put out that seeks to explain Froome's lack of pedigree (lost white boy in Africa pedalling through the jungle with undiagnosed Bilhazia bla bla bla) Froome went from a peloton nobody to a GT podium rider in one step. Not a progressive rise, but one step. It is arguable that he may have been higher up on that podium in Spain '11 had he not been riding for Wiggins, just as it is arguable that he may have won the '12 Tour had he been team captain.

So who does this rise from nobody to world beater look like? It looks like riders like Ricco. Do I find this believable? No I dont. How is he doing it? I wouldnt like to speculate, but I struggle to believe that it is a natural transformation. Is this a radical view? No I dont think it is. I think you'll find the sports writer, Paul Kimmage, has been saying much the same.

How does this relate to the thread? In exactly the way I said it did. In terms of the TUE scandal, Froome has come out of it rather well.

If it is a matter of belief then there is no way forward just like religious debates. Froome has a bit more pedigree than you give him credit for but that won't change the thrust of your argument. I discount Kimmage because he went into Clinic mode some time ago, although to his credit he has highlighted rugby as having proven problems.

IMHO, Froome is certainly an outlier. Whether this is natural, developed or aided in some unspecified way is not known. In that case, I regard him as not guilty until proven otherwise. While this state remains, we will never agree, not least because of the "you can't prove a negative" angle

What about the team-wide aspect. Do you think they are all on the juice?

 

[SWSteve]

If it is a matter of belief then there is no way forward just like religious debates. Froome has a bit more pedigree than you give him credit for but that won't change the thrust of your argument. I discount Kimmage because he went into Clinic mode some time ago, although to his credit he has highlighted rugby as having proven problems.

IMHO, Froome is certainly an outlier. Whether this is natural, developed or aided in some unspecified way is not known. In that case, I regard him as not guilty until proven otherwise. While this state remains, we will never agree, not least because of the "you can't prove a negative" angle

What about the team-wide aspect. Do you think they are all on the juice?

If they were all in the juice we might have seen more from swift and kennaugh

 

[coldash]

If they were all in the juice we might have seen more from swift and kennaugh

I don't think the team are on the juice because I can't see the supporting evidence but am trying to see whether people do regard it as a time-wide approach. In contrast with LA ("I never failed a drug test") there was evidence and corroborated accounts

 

[oldroadman]

Anyone who starts quoting Mr Kimmage (aka MR Campaign) is probably on a loser. That gentleman became obsessional then could find no evidence to support his interesting theories. I wonder if he has managed to do the same with rugby - ah, no, might get a visit from a few big lads...