Froome and Wiggins TUEs
- Thread starter Joffey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Foghat
Freight-train-groove-rider
Indeed - Lappartient's backbone is probably largely determined by:
- in relation to Sky's TUEs, the potentially enormous financial exposure associated with the UCI's limited resources taking on the Murdoch machine and its recourse to expensive legal might; and,
- more generally, the balance of power within procycling residing with ASO.
Last edited:
Siclo
Veteran
He's someone I have huge respect for as an engineer, innovator and athlete but this raises some interesting points.
Court of criminal law - Burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil Law - Balance of probabilities
Anti-doping - Who knows? There's no definition. Speculation will always be rife and anti-doping a standing joke until this is addressed. They need to stop making it up as they go to suit a political or corporate agenda
Jury of Peers - Fortunately this will never apply. Can you really see Ulrich, Rasmussen, Zabel et al condemning Lance? Heck, Wiggo was recently posting pictures of himself wearing a Motorola rainbow bands jersey, I'm not sure what that says. Not much different from juries of motorists and dangerous driving.
The system is still broken.
Last edited:
hoopdriver
Guru
Oh, the King John thing. I get it now. I thought the Magna Carta was one of the spring classics...
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
rich p
ridiculous old lush
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?
Foghat
Freight-train-groove-rider
Quite.
Assuming what @Dogtrousers posted is the extent of Obree's pronouncements on this, it's preposterous that some people need a court of law to tell them whether or not they're being bull$h1tted.
Is Obree's bull$h1t detector so ineffective that he cannot see: how Wiggins's written and interview statements are completely irreconcilable with a non-fraudulent valid rule-complying basis for his TUE applications; that Wiggins's own pre-prepared best effort at a justification for the applications ("levelling the playing field") doesn't meet either of the two principal mandatory criteria options open to him (emergency or exceptional circumstances); or how his lies about injections have been proven to be lies (pathetic excuses notwithstanding).
Can Obree really not recognise: the endless stream of bull$h1t and insincerity emanating from Brailsford; the enormous catalogue of malpractice revelations and his ridiculous excuses; Brailsford's utter failure to comply with his own lofty claims of propriety and zero tolerance, which were publicly and volubly touted by him to be the cornerstone of Sky's ethos but have been shot down in flames as complete garbage?
Does Obree really not understand what the whistleblower's testimony shows, or that one of the main perpetrators of Sky's scamming, well known for his own misuse of PEDs, admits it was unethical?
What about recognising that Froome has actually been found with double the allowed limit for salbutamol, and that by his own admission he and his doctor decided it was sensible to start dicking around with extra doses to protect his lead rather than opting not to run the risk of elevated dosing causing an adverse result and an associated ban in line with others who overdosed on it, not to mention being disqualified from the race result?
And is that the best he can do on the key lessons to be learned from Armstrong? How about recognising that Armstrong wilfully misled and exploited millions of cancer sufferers, and sued, threatened, bullied, intimidated and deliberately ruined the careers and business interests of innocent people. Rather than opting to concentrate on his concern for Armstrong, how about telling us what the important lessons to be learned from that outrageous repertoire of bad behaviour are......and it's not that "there is never enough", that's for sure.
Spectacularly missing the point, much like Redgrave did. Very poor show from Obree.....hopefully he's said something more sensible on the subject somewhere, but I can't say I'm inclined to try to find it.
Last edited:
Bollo
Failed Tech Bro
The article doesn’t quite deliver on the headline, but ASO may be getting the hump with Froome. Is this largely symbolic though given Froome’s Giro focus this year?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21/chris-froome-tour-de-france-race-oragnisers-aso
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21/chris-froome-tour-de-france-race-oragnisers-aso
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I don't think so. I'm sure Froome wants five wins and the clock's ticking... but ASO got away with a similar stunt in 2006. I think Sky has more money than the teams affected back then, but would they have enough time to take it through the courts and make it stick? In 2006, I think the ASO bans were only a day or two before the race.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
The Outer Line: Can science rescue Chris Froome? http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-can-science-rescue-chris-froome_460424 "Dr. Bill Apollo ... examines the Chris Froome controversy from a medical perspective, and concludes that it is unlikely to end well for Froome."
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
I find the Froome salbutamol case puzzling. To get caught with that much salbutamol in his system is a real schoolboy error - from that velonews piece, it seems it can only possibly be explained by Froome having taken a single massive dose of salbutamol, probably as a pill rather than from a puffer. But why on earth would he do that? I can't help feeling there's more to the story than has yet been revealed.
The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.
The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.
Last edited:
