Giro d'Italia / Tour de France

[Tredman]

Decent article here on it:

Chris Froome: Cyclist facing questions over adverse test result - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42335916

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

You don't need a TUE for salbutamol. It was one odd reading out of numerous tests, which actually seems to be easily explainable. Bit of an over reaction to lump him in with Lance.

Yes you're right. Wiggins did have one for salbutamol and Froome had one for prednisolone.

Wether or not the test is formally upheld is irrelevant, he will be labelled, by many, as a drugs cheat.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

Really, that bad?

From over here in France where they spat on him, threw piss at him and booed him over thousands of miles of racing despite any evidence to suggest he was cheating?

Yes, that bad.

 

[Johnny75]

From over here in France where they spat on him, threw piss at him and booed him over thousands of miles of racing despite any evidence to suggest he was cheating?

Yes, that bad.

That's the French for you, they're cunts.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

If you judge a nation on the basis of its sports fans I'd love to know what you make of the English. Pissed up, fat fucking racists the lot of 'em I suppose.

 

[Johnny75]

If you judge a nation on the basis of its sports fans I'd love to know what you make of the English. Pissed up, fat fucking racists the lot of 'em I suppose.

Mainly I'm judging the French and being French. They're cunts.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

Well I don't know if you're drunk or fat, but you have at least one of the aforementioned traits.

 

[Johnny75]

Well I don't know if you're drunk or fat, but you have at least one of the aforementioned traits.

So you think it's OK to spit and throw piss at somebody?

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

It doesn't matter what I think, you just called my kids cunts on behalf of them being French you ignorant, racist bellend.

 

[Pompey Wolf]

Froome is held in great suspicion by a lot of people outside of this country so doubt this will alter things too much. interested to hear what the explanation is though.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

Froome is held in great suspicion by a lot of people outside of this country so doubt this will alter things too much. interested to hear what the explanation is though.

Unfortunately a lot of people will see this as confirmation, regardless of his explanations. Some serious journalists have accused him of having a motorised bike in the past, this story is playing right into their hands.

 

[Wombat del combate]

One thing that has been mentioned is the potential of an Armageddon-type scenario for Sky (less so Froome IMO), that being Froome getting a ban. Given their well publicised stance on drugs and bans, they would be obliged to sack him. If they didn't their credibility would be as good as zero, and if they did then who would take his place, not to mention the bidding war from the other teams, as I believe that is what would happen, hence why I caveated Froome out of the potential situation because I think he has that kind of focus to not worry overly much, case in point being his noticeably delayed statement on Brailsford and the Jiffy bag palaver.

From what I've read, Sky are going to go down the road of dehydration (apparently 2% can impart this level of reading), and/or various physiological quirks with which to explain away the result, which is fair enough as they want to protect their prize asset, but at the same time seems a bit "wriggly" IMO.

 

[Pompey Wolf]

Sky usually find a way out of it. Agree with what you say in the first para though, although having the Vuelta stricken from his record and being banned for 12 months (as apparently happened to Allesandro Petacchi for the exact same thing a few years back) would be a pretty black mark on his career. Wouldn't want for contract offers after the ban though as you say.

 

[nimrod]

One thing that has been mentioned is the potential of an Armageddon-type scenario for Sky (less so Froome IMO), that being Froome getting a ban. Given their well publicised stance on drugs and bans, they would be obliged to sack him. If they didn't their credibility would be as good as zero, and if they did then who would take his place, not to mention the bidding war from the other teams, as I believe that is what would happen, hence why I caveated Froome out of the potential situation because I think he has that kind of focus to not worry overly much, case in point being his noticeably delayed statement on Brailsford and the Jiffy bag palaver.

From what I've read, Sky are going to go down the road of dehydration (apparently 2% can impart this level of reading), and/or various physiological quirks with which to explain away the result, which is fair enough as they want to protect their prize asset, but at the same time seems a bit "wriggly" IMO.

I think views on sky are hugely polarised esp given the whole wiggins fiasco - I'm not sure it's ever been about credibility to be honest. I think that's a game for the public that teams have been playing for years. I agree what you've put.. maybe a wriggly defence, but one that they consider defendable. so supporters will accept it, they might not care about anyone else.

 

[Wombat del combate]

I think Brailsford created the rod for Sky's back by way of trumpeting their zero tolerance approach, and the subsequent dismissal of *anyone* (Julich, B.) who had been a bit naughty in the past. It's like he nicked the Garmin/Millar concept and went to the far reach of wat it could be ("Garmin +++", to parpahrase our dearly beloved Brexit Secretary.)

 

[Wombat del combate]

Quite the excoriating report on Sky (Brailsford) and thus by association Wiggins, Froome et al. I can't imagine that they will recover from this.

 

[Johnny75]

Quite the excoriating report on Sky (Brailsford) and thus by association Wiggins, Froome et al. I can't imagine that they will recover from this.

It's all supposition though. What Wiggins did or didn't do, nobody knows but Wiggins and Brailsford and as several people on Twitter have pointed out that if what the report claims is true then it is a clear doping violation. WADA have found SKY not guilty and have deemed to take no further action as no rules have been broken.

I hope the authors of that report are sued for fake news. Just writing opinion as fact is a very dangerous road the world is going down right now.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It's a parliamentary committee so I don't think they can be sued as parliamentary privelige kicks in

 

[machin05]

Wasn't Wiggins clear at the end of last year after a year long investigation? What's prompted this new report?

 

[Johnny75]

It's a parliamentary committee so I don't think they can be sued as parliamentary privelige kicks in

There must be some recourse as they can't hide behind that report as it's opinion posing as fact. Wiggins has called them out on it already.