Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 21222324 LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 586
  1. #551
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: GlobalGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    They're all dopers. Once you accept that, then we can move on.
    The truth. Full and complete.

  2. #552
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    331
    Im in no way going to defend SKY as Team postals clone, but maybe the rest like Dumoulin really aren't good major tour riders anyway. I'm pretty sure the rest are squeaky clean, insert eyes roll here.

  3. #553
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: GlobalGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    361
    The winner of the 1996 Tour de France, Bjarne Lykkegård Riis carried the nickname of Mr. Sixty by the Peloton because his hematocrit was measured as high as 60. Other times he tested at 56.

    Froome dopes. They all do. They all have since approximately 1991. Before that doping was common but more varied with much of it not physiologically effective.

    Remember this is a sport where in France circa 1998 when the French stopped numerous team vans they found doping supplies and equipment in every case.

    I don’t fault Froome for doping. But let us not try to pretend that he is not. There is a tenancy for most of us if we like a particularly successful athlete to not want to believe, “not my guy. He or she is clean.”

  4. #554
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    573

    Froome no longer in trouble

    Froome no longer in trouble!

    UCI statement on anti-doping proceedings involving Mr Christopher Froome
    The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.
    Last edited by coldash; 07-02-2018 at 02:10 AM.

  5. #555
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,771
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post

    The UCI was also glad to accept a massive cash infusion into their bank account , too.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  6. #556
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,028
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    So they wont reveal whatever lame explanation that Froome's legal team concocted?

  7. #557
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,491
    Why doesn't this surprise me at all. This is Lance and Postal all over again.

    Now they may as well as lift the ban against the limit on salbutamol. If it's been determined that Froome can be double over the limit then anybody else can.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  8. #558
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,139
    Uci=wwe
    Too old to ride plastic

  9. #559
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: 9W9W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,604
    hah!

    Have you seen WWE's stock price recently? (ticker WWE)
    "That pretty much sums it up. I'm 43 and my max is ~178-180. If that HR chart was mine or Froome's, we'd be on the verge of death. But for you it probably looks like a normal workout." -TLG

    LOLOLOL

  10. #560
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    48,814
    Quote Originally Posted by 9W9W View Post
    hah!

    Have you seen WWE's stock price recently? (ticker WWE)
    the new breed of wrasslers don't have good names
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  11. #561
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    48,814
    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    Watching the interviews after stage 20 right now. How come Froomie isn't coughing and hacking up a storm? I mean, he's got terrible asthma, he wouldn't even be able to compete were it not for his inhaler.
    that's what Katie Compton said (so to speak)
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  12. #562
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    So they wont reveal whatever lame explanation that Froome's legal team concocted?
    WTF?!?!

    "WADA’s position is as follows:

    1. Based
    on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome --
    including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short
    period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented
    illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the
    excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not
    inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the
    permitted maximum dose.

    2. WADA
    recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit
    concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without
    exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited
    List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate,
    typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as
    permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is
    compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.

    3. In
    Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been
    practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate
    the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control
    (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying
    doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).

    4. Therefore,
    having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into
    account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

    - the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;

    - an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and

    - the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

    WADA believes this to be the right and fair outcome for what was a very complex case."

    source: aroundtherings dot com /site/A__63909/Title__WADA-will-not-appeal-UCI-decision-in-Christopher-Froome-case/292/Articles

    So, it can't be reproduced so WADA is just going to accept Froome's explanation.
    "When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  13. #563
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,491
    In other words: WADA DID NOT want to find Froome guilty and therefore accepted any explanation.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  14. #564
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,489
    Quote Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    In other words: WADA DID NOT want to find Froome guilty and therefore accepted any explanation.
    I had to chuckle and shake my head upon reading this when I got up. I literally can’t take pro cycling seriously anymore. Did they forget they banned Pettachi and others for having lower levels of the same drug in their system??? The UCI and WADA are broken and need complete rebuilds IMO.

    Maybe it’s time to give cyclocross more attention again or just embrace being a basketball and soccer fan. This doping and sponsor stuff with pro road cycling is looney tunes. It’s tough to be invested in who wins amidst the foolishness that continues to be legitimized and explained away.
    Every climb has its end, for verily with difficulty there is relief...

  15. #565
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,042
    unbelievalbe, after almost a year, this is the kind of fluffy explanation we get from the scientists at WADA?

    Then what will be the implications for past and future salbutamol infractions? Just say you cannot recreate the condition due to its uniqueness and get away with it?

    Give Lance Armstrong his 7 titles back!

  16. #566
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    unbelievalbe, after almost a year, this is the kind of fluffy explanation we get from the scientists at WADA?

    Then what will be the implications for past and future salbutamol infractions? Just say you cannot recreate the condition due to its uniqueness and get away with it?

    Give Lance Armstrong his 7 titles back!
    And clear Petacchi and Ulissi, while they're at it.
    "When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  17. #567
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashadabd View Post
    I had to chuckle and shake my head upon reading this when I got up. I literally can’t take pro cycling seriously anymore. Did they forget they banned Pettachi and others for having lower levels of the same drug in their system??? The UCI and WADA are broken and need complete rebuilds IMO.

    Maybe it’s time to give cyclocross more attention again or just embrace being a basketball and soccer fan. This doping and sponsor stuff with pro road cycling is looney tunes. It’s tough to be invested in who wins amidst the foolishness that continues to be legitimized and explained away.
    I've given up on the skinny dudes and their chemists, although the scenery is still nice. I've been watching the world cup DH races, they're exciting. Rachel Atherton broke her chain, then crashed and still podiumed since she's got balls as big as cantaloupes and the skills to match. Impressive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qdzhhccdPY

  18. #568
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,028
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    unbelievalbe, after almost a year, this is the kind of fluffy explanation we get from the scientists at WADA?

    Then what will be the implications for past and future salbutamol infractions? Just say you cannot recreate the condition due to its uniqueness and get away with it?

    Give Lance Armstrong his 7 titles back!
    What I don't get is if they were going to just sweep this under the rug why did they wait until the 11th hour and allow the unprecedented move by ASO to try to ban him. This could not have been handled any worse

  19. #569
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,771
    Quote Originally Posted by velodog View Post
    Uci=wwe

    Now now, don't be unfair to the WWE.

    They actually make money and get people wanting to pay for TV rights (TV rights is how they stay in business, as the live-show tickets don't sell)....also their shows are absolutely hysterical to (have to) watch. The moreso because fans who pay for tickets take it so over-the-top seriously....and it is so obviously fake when not seen from the myopic lens of the camera.


    Also...WWE pays some of the best wages for their technicians in the entire live productions industry.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  20. #570
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    What I don't get is if they were going to just sweep this under the rug why did they wait until the 11th hour and allow the unprecedented move by ASO to try to ban him. This could not have been handled any worse
    Bingo.
    Froome's situation was allowed to linger for almost a year.
    Then ASO exercised the nuclear option at the 11th hour and threatened to ban Froome.
    Then immediately, WADA and UCI stepped in to clear him using the some sort of bs simpleton explanation.
    The corruption could not have been anymore obvious.
    There had to be some major wheelin & dealin between the Sky lawyers and the UCI and WADA that went on behind closed door. There is no other way to explain this blatancy.

  21. #571
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,028
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Bingo.
    Froome's situation was allowed to linger for almost a year.
    Then ASO exercised the nuclear option at the 11th hour and threatened to ban Froome.
    Then immediately, WADA and UCI stepped in to clear him using the some sort of bs simpleton explanation.
    The corruption could not have been anymore obvious.
    There had to be some major wheelin & dealin between the Sky lawyers and the UCI and WADA that went on behind closed door. There is no other way to explain this blatancy.
    Can WADA and the UCI be that oblivious to how this makes them look? I know the answer is yes, but they did more damage to pro cycling here than Froome did

  22. #572
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,771
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    Can WADA and the UCI be that oblivious to how this makes them look? I know the answer is yes, but they did more damage to pro cycling here than Froome did

    All UCI employees hence forth need "BRIBE ME" tattooed on their foreheads.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  23. #573
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    All UCI employees hence forth need "BRIBE ME" tattooed on their foreheads.
    I know some are saying that ASO overstepped their bounds but I am glad they did what they did because it pointed out how corrupt the UCI and WADA are.

  24. #574
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Now now, don't be unfair to the WWE.

    They actually make money and get people wanting to pay for TV rights (TV rights is how they stay in business, as the live-show tickets don't sell)....also their shows are absolutely hysterical to (have to) watch. The moreso because fans who pay for tickets take it so over-the-top seriously....and it is so obviously fake when not seen from the myopic lens of the camera.


    Also...WWE pays some of the best wages for their technicians in the entire live productions industry.

    Add a couple more things to be totally fair to the WWE. They have never banned drugs (other than actually illegal ones) and as soon as one state wanted to drug test because it was a sport they had no problem admitted it's only entertainment and results are known long before anyone starts the show for the night. Plus yes they actually make tons of money.

    Wait, you mean that's who I should have contacted after graduating from college? (I have a degree in broadcasting.)

  25. #575
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,030
    I totally agree that this did more damage to the sport than anything else they could have done. I'm also glad the ASO did what they did because they proved how corrupt the UCI and WADA are (although the past Olympics and Russia I think proved the WADA is corrupt, this just cemented that). With this decision we know know that anti doping is a total farce and that the pro peloton is as dirty if not dirtier than it's ever been. This decision also cements my decision than when Valverde retires I'm certainly not going hunting to watch races, which also means being in the US I probably won't bother with any races since none of them are actually easy to watch. I shall just go back to watching ice hockey. At least that is believable. Oh and Indy Car racing, which at least is entertaining and the drivers are exceptionally accessible to the fans.

Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 21222324 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sidi FROOME LTD Carbon Wire shoes
    By Fignon's Barber in forum Classifieds Feedback - Scam Warnings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-09-2016, 08:34 AM
  2. Froome's Message Sent
    By AdamM in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-14-2012, 05:45 AM
  3. Bobby Julich on Chris Froome
    By Chainstay in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-10-2012, 08:55 AM
  4. Simoni/Cunego = Wigo/Froome?
    By WAZCO in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 10:05 AM
  5. Even Republicans say the we're in trouble...Big Trouble.
    By MR_GRUMPY in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-15-2004, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

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

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.