Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[Maenchi]

I'm not sure about that, other than in the UK media; which is still a minor player in terms of cycling.

I don't think he'll ever get "legend" status irrespective of what he does, other than with Sky fanboys/converts from golf.

why 'converts from golf' ?................

 

[Slick]

why 'converts from golf' ?................

Seems a common enough theory on here that needs to have any basis in truth.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

why 'converts from golf' ?................

Cycling is the new golf according to me

 

[Foghat]

Now the Giro organisers thinks Brailsford sold them a lemon....

Difficult to summon much sympathy for Vegni, given this demonstrates what a bull$h1tter he must be, based on his previous flat denials of start fees or any 'relationship based on economics' with Sky around Froome entering the Giro......... maybe he's been infected by the Sky bull$h1tting machine.

Stop bull$h1tting, you morons!

 

[roadrash]

As @rich p said above, both have a legitimate place in cycling but a hell of a lot of die hard cycling fans put more emphasis on the classics than grand tours .

 

[FishFright]

Feel free to disagree, and enjoy your 18 holes in the morning

I was under the influence and failed to write the joke and only wrote the chuckle.

 

[Maenchi]

Cycling is the new golf according to me

Cycling is the new golf according to me

Sacrilege !!

 

[User169]

Well I never!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-salbutamol-defence-boosted-by-scientific-study/

 

[roadrash]

well isn't that jolly good timing

 

[smutchin]

I can’t see how this will really help Froome. Even revising his sample down to 1,429ng/ml, that’s still considerably in excess of the 1,000ng/ml limit. It doesn’t state in the report exactly by how much they exceeded 1,000ng/ml in the simulation but that only leads me to suppose it’s not by that much.

 

[roadrash]

so where has this magical figure of 1,429ng/ml come from , if that's the figure then why not say that from the start , if it isn't the figure then stick with the original , I don't understand how someone came up with a "revised "figure

 

[Bollo]

I can’t see how this will really help Froome. Even revising his sample down to 1,429ng/ml, that’s still considerably in excess of the 1,000ng/ml limit. It doesn’t state in the report exactly by how much they exceeded 1,000ng/ml in the simulation but that only leads me to suppose it’s not by that much.

It means he’s only 42.9% as guilty as f***.

 

[rich p]

Does anyone know if @Adam4868 works in a lab in Leiden?

 

[Adam4868]

Does anyone know if @Adam4868 works in a lab in Leiden?

Nah......

View: https://youtu.be/OO9AhsGaV58

 

[smutchin]

I know he's not all that popular with some here but here's Ross Tucker's take on this. I found it interesting.

His biggest crime is presenting this stuff as a series of tweets rather than in more digestible blog format. Very irritating.

That aside, he does make some good points - "First, if 15.4% of people can fail a test, then where are all history's failures? Second, Froome didn’t just fail it - he blew the ceiling off WADA’s upper limit" (TMN to me) and on top of that, the simulation is based on someone taking the maximum 800mcg dose all in one go, which is not at all the same as having a few puffs over the course of a few hours of riding.