Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 93 of 93
  1. #76
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by n2deep View Post
    I do no believe we intend to do anything but to let the facts speak for themselves. I have nothing against Froome but do not believe for one microsecond that he needs salbutamol to keep from wheezing or that the UCI is impartial.. If you do please drop by as I'm selling ocean front property close to Phoenix.
    So you jump from “let the facts speak for themselves” to “do not believe for one microsecond”. Your beliefs are not facts (nor is anyone else’s). They may be prejudices but that is up to you to justify

  2. #77
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    The vulnerability of the test was known by the same doctor back in 2007, or so he said. But then he never defended the others who were sanctioned under such rule until Froome came along. Now, he's coming out to defend Froome. But WADA has said they don't expect those who have been sanctioned to file grievances. So why not?

    btw are you a Brit? you sound like a Brit who's a Froome fan
    FFS. Do you read anything that has been stated by the experts including this ALREADY QUOTED IN THIS THREAD

    Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

  3. #78
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    The vulnerability of the test was known by the same doctor back in 2007, or so he said. But then he never defended the others who were sanctioned under such rule until Froome came along. Now, he's coming out to defend Froome. But WADA has said they don't expect those who have been sanctioned to file grievances. So why not?

    btw are you a Brit? you sound like a Brit who's a Froome fan
    With comments Petacchi has said, I have a feeling he IS going to file a grievance. Once that happens, it's going to get really interesting. I really hope both he and Ulissi do.

  4. #79
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    That is more or less where I am on it as well. Don't particularly like it but I think it has to come off the list, at least until a reliable test can be introduced. Petacchi, IMV, definitely has a case, although I seem to remember he said something along the lines of he might have exceeded the intake amount. It doesn't really matter because there is sufficient doubt. IIRC, Ulissi, fessed up so that might be different.

    There is still a wealth of data that WADA and the UCI should release e.g. the suggestion that some people with a higher reading than Froome were exonerated and the number of cases resolved and outstanding. The UCI still have to publish a report on how Froome and only Froome's data was leaked by them.

    Meanwhile I don't know what is/was happening with the suggestion that caffeine should be reintroduced to the banned list. That would be fun.


    The caffeine should be fun if they do, since we see the entire peloton drinking coke during the middle of stages and everyone know it has caffeine, plus most cyclists drink coffee when out on a training ride and stop in at cafe.

  5. #80
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by KoroninK View Post
    With comments Petacchi has said, I have a feeling he IS going to file a grievance. Once that happens, it's going to get really interesting. I really hope both he and Ulissi do.
    I’m with you on Petacchi. I thought it was a bit odd at the time and I really hoped when he came back out of retirement he would have got more of a reward for his efforts. Don’t really know much about the Ulissi case

  6. #81
    Road Warrior
    Reputation: n2deep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    So you jump from “let the facts speak for themselves” to “do not believe for one microsecond”. Your beliefs are not facts (nor is anyone else’s). They may be prejudices but that is up to you to justify
    You make some interesting points but my beliefs are based on experience, discussions with a few doctors, a healthy dose of skepticism and just good ole common sense; you know,, if it quacks like a duck, has feathers, webed feet, looks like a duck,, than most likely its a duck. What are your's based on,, Sky’s press releases??
    Last edited by n2deep; 2 Weeks Ago at 05:34 AM.

  7. #82
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,787
    Quote Originally Posted by n2deep View Post
    You make some interesting points but my beliefs are based on experience, discussions with a few doctors, a healthy dose of skepticism and just good ole common sense; you know,, if it quacks like a duck, has feathers, webed feet, looks like a duck,, than most likely its a duck. What are your's based on,, Sky’s press releases??
    Sky has been quacking since Wiggo.

    On the track cycling side, the French are wondering why the Brits seem to peak only at the Olympics, but nonexistent for all Worlds in between. Serious "cycling" methodology?

    On the cultural side, it's estimated that 1 in 30 men takes steroids in the UK. Regular desk pushers and accounts casually and openly use them like vitamin T. Makes one wonder what the serious athletes are doing eh. I find that Brits are more willing to defend their athletes than Americans; perhaps it's because 1 in 30 Brit men consider using dope is like drinking vitamin waters, nothing to make a fuzz


  8. #83
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Sky has been quacking since Wiggo.

    On the track cycling side, the French are wondering why the Brits seem to peak only at the Olympics, but nonexistent for all Worlds in between. Serious "cycling" methodology?

    On the cultural side, it's estimated that 1 in 30 men takes steroids in the UK. Regular desk pushers and accounts casually and openly use them like vitamin T. Makes one wonder what the serious athletes are doing eh. I find that Brits are more willing to defend their athletes than Americans; perhaps it's because 1 in 30 Brit men consider using dope is like drinking vitamin waters, nothing to make a fuzz


    That's interesting. My husband's had 2 steriod shots over about 8 years until he was finally diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis and was able to get on medication for that. You may be on to something about why the Brits are so defensive of their athletes vs Americans and other nationalities?

  9. #84
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    535
    LA’s view (from the latest The Move on YouTube)

    For the folks who think you can just lawyer up and get round these guys. No, you can’t. I had more money and lawyers than Sky do and I couldn’t get round them.

  10. #85
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,873
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    LA’s view (from the latest The Move on YouTube)
    The charges against LA were much more serious and there was far more evidence. He certainly did try to fight it with all those resources. I do think the Froome case shows that big money can help you get off. Perhaps the UCI and WADA did not feel they had the resources or expertise to combat all the stuff in the 1500 page rebuttal.

  11. #86
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    11,490
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    The charges against LA were much more serious and there was far more evidence. He certainly did try to fight it with all those resources. I do think the Froome case shows that big money can help you get off. Perhaps the UCI and WADA did not feel they had the resources or expertise to combat all the stuff in the 1500 page rebuttal.
    they have in the past.
    Blows your hair back.

  12. #87
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,787
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    The charges against LA were much more serious and there was far more evidence. He certainly did try to fight it with all those resources. I do think the Froome case shows that big money can help you get off. Perhaps the UCI and WADA did not feel they had the resources or expertise to combat all the stuff in the 1500 page rebuttal.
    Early in his career, he was getting around the UCI just fine by bribing. It's only later when he's all washed up, with USADA bearing down on him, and his teammates ratting out against him, including his buddy Hincapie, did Armstrong finally gave in. Had he stayed retired and kept his mouth shut, history would have changed in his favor.

  13. #88
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,873
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Early in his career, he was getting around the UCI just fine by bribing. It's only later when he's all washed up, with USADA bearing down on him, and his teammates ratting out against him, including his buddy Hincapie, did Armstrong finally gave in. Had he stayed retired and kept his mouth shut, history would have changed in his favor.
    I agree with this. Had he not come out of retirement the investigations would have eventually fizzled out and he would be home with his 7 jerseys. He was not able to control his ego

  14. #89
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,787
    Is asthma an advantage?

    As for the origins of the mysterious "asthmatic advantage," the leading theory is that prolonged training, particularly in certain endurance sports, can eventually damage the airways. As a result, the athletes with asthma are generally the ones who've been training longest and hardest -- and thus, are more likely to medal. For example, 17 percent of cyclists and 19 percent of swimmers in Beijing reported asthma diagnoses; those athletes won 29 and 33 percent of the medals in those sports, respectively.
    source: https://www.runnersworld.com/health-...-the-olympics/

    Another study linking higher prevalence of asthma to endurance sport:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...54611115001560

    So prolonged endurance training can induce asthma. Maybe asthma is the body's natural way of telling the individual to back off or die. My question is, is using asthma drug so that you can cope with the training any different than weighlifter using steroid to speed up muscle recovery? I will argue that it's time we should ban asthma drugs all together. I'm sorry, but having asthma in endurance sport is like having low testosterone in weightlifting or short legs in running. Having all these TUEs or "sick individuals" is only proving that those with the most money to hire the best doctors and medical teams (and lawyers) are have the best chances to game the system.

  15. #90
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    535
    Tin foil hats at the ready

    https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/ne...stopher-froome

    Let the conspiracy theories begin (or restart)

  16. #91
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,873
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    Tin foil hats at the ready

    https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/ne...stopher-froome

    Let the conspiracy theories begin (or restart)
    It seems like a good part of this response by WADA is to put most of the blame on the UCI

  17. #92
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,787
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    Tin foil hats at the ready

    https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/ne...stopher-froome

    Let the conspiracy theories begin (or restart)
    what is this, a WADA hoax release? Based on their reasoning, Froome can just use this same tactic again now that he already has a dismissal precedence. Money can guy a lot of convoluted reasoning eh, 1500 pages of them, when given half a chance eh.

    perhpas WADA should post videos of Mr Froome's acute asthma sickness following Vuelta 2017 stage 17 & 18 to give the world a glimpse of what a sick asthma suffer looks like post race. Whew, glad that's settled.


  18. #93
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,787

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. RBR TdF 2018 Predictions! Post by Start Time 2018
    By PJay in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 04:36 AM
  2. What is Froome on? (Gene doping??)
    By bbrrxx in forum The Doping Forum
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 07-19-2013, 03:35 PM
  3. Froome doping or not?
    By qwe213 in forum The Doping Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2013, 04:01 AM
  4. Froome doping or not?
    By qwe213 in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2013, 04:01 AM
  5. Looks like Wiggins is stepping aside for Froome a TdF for sure, for sure.
    By Ventruck in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-11-2013, 05:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest RoadBike Articles

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.