UCI president David Lappartient says decision on Chris Froome case now unlikely until after Tour de France

daytonatwin wrote:

You can tell by the comments here that you are all British quick to kick our heros in the bollocks and be proud doing it, now if this was a rider of France/ Italy etc the people of those countries would back him up to the hilt , not like you goody goody politically brainwashed correct bums here on this site.

Well I for one as the only intelligent being here backs Mr Froome up all the way, I am proud of his acheivements unlike you lot who are falling into the hands of the French who don't waste a minute to kick any British sportsman in the teeth and you cowardly lot are falling into their hands by agreeing with them, it's a wonder that we have any British sportsmen at all with the anti British self defecating so called British public like you lot, you all make me sick to the back teeth with your pro foreigne anti British attitudes, you lot should take a bloody good look in the mirror and hang your heads in shame.

sarcasm or star gammon? i just can't tell the difference anymore

Deeferdonk wrote:

daytonatwin wrote:

You can tell by the comments here that you are all British quick to kick our heros in the bollocks and be proud doing it, now if this was a rider of France/ Italy etc the people of those countries would back him up to the hilt , not like you goody goody politically brainwashed correct bums here on this site.

Well I for one as the only intelligent being here backs Mr Froome up all the way, I am proud of his acheivements unlike you lot who are falling into the hands of the French who don't waste a minute to kick any British sportsman in the teeth and you cowardly lot are falling into their hands by agreeing with them, it's a wonder that we have any British sportsmen at all with the anti British self defecating so called British public like you lot, you all make me sick to the back teeth with your pro foreigne anti British attitudes, you lot should take a bloody good look in the mirror and hang your heads in shame.

sarcasm or star gammon? i just can't tell the difference anymore

Poe's Law, innit?

DrJDog wrote:

“This isn’t down to laxity on the part of the UCI,” he continued. “But when you have 1,500 pages of scientific reports, you really have to analyse them. We need to respect procedure, the rights of Chris Froome as well as our own.”

 

My PhD was about 350/400 pages. And that included a lot of diagrams. 1500 pages to 'prove' that Froome mightn't have taken all that salbutamol at once sounds quite ridiculous. They're just trying to wear down the prosecution with the weight of defense evidence.

You might have a Phd but you fail to understand the huge difference here between you writing something up to gain a qualification against someone/an organisation accused of cheating and indeed criminal behaviour in effect, or did you just forget what happened to Lance Armstrong from a legal POV and the money he's had to pay back plus all the hate/vitriol thrown at him?

When your whole career including that of the whole team and indeed much more are at stake don't you think you would want to produce as much evidence as you could possibly muster to prove innocence?

You make up shit about weight of evidence and yet you'll have done exactly that time and again both in your studies and career. Your comment is the typical BS subjective, without any shred of evidence spouted by people with short memories and unable to comprehend basic differentials in situations.

Kudos for outing yourself doc!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

DrJDog wrote:

“This isn’t down to laxity on the part of the UCI,” he continued. “But when you have 1,500 pages of scientific reports, you really have to analyse them. We need to respect procedure, the rights of Chris Froome as well as our own.”

 

My PhD was about 350/400 pages. And that included a lot of diagrams. 1500 pages to 'prove' that Froome mightn't have taken all that salbutamol at once sounds quite ridiculous. They're just trying to wear down the prosecution with the weight of defense evidence.

You might have a Phd but you fail to understand the huge difference here between you writing something up to gain a qualification against someone/an organisation accused of cheating and indeed criminal behaviour in effect, or did you just forget what happened to Lance Armstrong from a legal POV and the money he's had to pay back plus all the hate/vitriol thrown at him?

When your whole career including that of the whole team and indeed much more are at stake don't you think you would want to produce as much evidence as you could possibly muster to prove innocence?

You make up shit about weight of evidence and yet you'll have done exactly that time and again both in your studies and career. Your comment is the typical BS subjective, without any shred of evidence spouted by people with short memories and unable to comprehend basic differentials in situations.

Kudos for outing yourself doc!

No, you're holding back to be polite... go on, tell us what you really think... 

DrJDog wrote:

“This isn’t down to laxity on the part of the UCI,” he continued. “But when you have 1,500 pages of scientific reports, you really have to analyse them. We need to respect procedure, the rights of Chris Froome as well as our own.”

 

My PhD was about 350/400 pages. And that included a lot of diagrams. 1500 pages to 'prove' that Froome mightn't have taken all that salbutamol at once sounds quite ridiculous. They're just trying to wear down the prosecution with the weight of defense evidence.

1500 pages is not a lot of evidence in a legal trial, in the Rolls-Royce serious fraud office DPA 30 million documents were examined.

It's also cute that you think that a PhD thesis in any way comes close in evidentiary standards to what is required in law or complex industries.

For example in such a case you might actually present a whole PhD thesis as part of our evidence. Or the las 5 years of drugs tests or power meter files.

Judge dreadful wrote:

It’s good to see Sky are still the masters of smoke throwing, when it looks like one of their team is banged to rights. I think the latest ‘miraculous performance improvement’ in stage 19 of the Giro, is more likely to be due to a hooky bike, rather than doping by the rider, even sky wouldn’t be daft / arrogant enough to have a rider under scrutiny, doping.

Pray, good sir, where can I buy one of those aforementioned 'hooky' bikes?

Judge dreadful wrote:

It’s good to see Sky are still the masters of smoke throwing, when it looks like one of their team is banged to rights. I think the latest ‘miraculous performance improvement’ in stage 19 of the Giro, is more likely to be due to a hooky bike, rather than doping by the rider, even sky wouldn’t be daft / arrogant enough to have a rider under scrutiny, doping.

Froome's bike was tested numerous times during the Giro, including after stage 19.

What are you aware of that the UCI aren't?

Judge dreadful wrote:

It’s good to see Sky are still the masters of smoke throwing, when it looks like one of their team is banged to rights. I think the latest ‘miraculous performance improvement’ in stage 19 of the Giro, is more likely to be due to a hooky bike, rather than doping by the rider, even sky wouldn’t be daft / arrogant enough to have a rider under scrutiny, doping.

Greater results may be available from mechanical doping, but it is far far easier and cheaper to detect. It is also awfully difficult to deny once found, rather than a blood test which has many ephemeral values to argue over. 

You'd be really really daft to be mechanically doping. Even if Froome is found guilty, it's perfectly conceivable that  he wasn't actually doping, but has been found guilty of a technical doping offence (Like missing whereabouts reporting, or not being available for a doping test. Both technically doping positivies, without actual doping taking place)

sammutd88 wrote:

This saga is yet another stain on the shirt of the UCI. Utter incompetence from the governing body of the sport. As far as I’m concerned, Froome was found with a certain amount of Salbutamol in his system that is above the legal threshold, and of which has had 2 other pro cyclists (to my knowledge) suspended. There is no place for special treatment in enforcing this matter. The case of whether or not Salbutamol should be a banned substance in certain amounts is a case for after Froome is suspended and therefore stripped of his Giro victory. Those other 2 riders who were banned should be making it very clear that if Froome gets off, they will be taking the UCI to court for compensation. 

there's been at least 3 cases, one of them wasn't suspended after proving it was anonomly!

sammutd88 wrote:

This saga is yet another stain on the shirt of the UCI. Utter incompetence from the governing body of the sport. As far as I’m concerned, Froome was found with a certain amount of Salbutamol in his system that is above the legal threshold, and of which has had 2 other pro cyclists (to my knowledge) suspended. There is no place for special treatment in enforcing this matter. The case of whether or not Salbutamol should be a banned substance in certain amounts is a case for after Froome is suspended and therefore stripped of his Giro victory. Those other 2 riders who were banned should be making it very clear that if Froome gets off, they will be taking the UCI to court for compensation. 

The other cases where people were suspended for salbutamol also took many months to decide, the only difference was that they were done in private.

We also don't know if there has been any other cases where salbutamol findings were explained and the rider was not sanctioned because as noted earlier they aren' public.

cdamian wrote:

Frankly I don't care any more who is right and wrong. The whole process is broken and it turned me off following professional cycling. The Giro will be the last one I followed in some way.

I'm also tired of defending the sport to non cyclists.

On a positive note: it gives me more time on the bike.

Sadly, the reason you are having to defend cycling to non cyclists is that they stupidly believe their sport is drug free.

The main reason for this is their controlling bodies don't run any real drug testing programmes. Football - chemical factory. Rugby - you're having a laugh, big, ripped, cardio, ok! Tennis - has never given a shit about drug testing. Those caught by drug testing in those sports are victims of politial punishment for annoying the wrong people.

But hey, to Joe Public they're all clean as a whistle. These are the same idiots that believe Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman just ate a lot of chicken and steam vegetables to put muscle on and if you go to gym and buy Maximuscle products, you to will look like a steroid user. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

The main reason for this is their controlling bodies don't run any real drug testing programmes. Football - chemical factory. Rugby - you're having a laugh, big, ripped, cardio, ok! Tennis - has never given a shit about drug testing. Those caught by drug testing in those sports are victims of politial punishment for annoying the wrong people.

But hey, to Joe Public they're all clean as a whistle. These are the same idiots that believe Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman just ate a lot of chicken and steam vegetables to put muscle on and if you go to gym and buy Maximuscle products, you to will look like a steroid user. 

Professionalism and the accompanying incentive to use drugs has completely transformed the game of rugby.  In the mid-90s, the top players didn't look particularly out of the ordinary in terms of size and musculature.  They were clearly strong guys, but they weren't bulky like modern players.  I'm thinking of Carling, Guscott, Andrew, Underwood.   The props were big, but they were also slow.  Someone like Jonah Lomu was considered a genetic freak.  Nowadays, the pitch is full of Jonah Lomus.  They all weigh seventeen stone and run 100m in 11 seconds.  It has completely changed how the game is played, and not just in the top flight.

Of course, there are sports where athletes use performance-enhancing drugs with the full knowledge not just of the officials, but the spectators too...

srchar wrote:

Professionalism and the accompanying incentive to use drugs has completely transformed the game of rugby.  In the mid-90s, the top players didn't look particularly out of the ordinary in terms of size and musculature.  They were clearly strong guys, but they weren't bulky like modern players.  I'm thinking of Carling, Guscott, Andrew, Underwood.   The props were big, but they were also slow.  Someone like Jonah Lomu was considered a genetic freak.  Nowadays, the pitch is full of Jonah Lomus.  They all weigh seventeen stone and run 100m in 11 seconds.  It has completely changed how the game is played, and not just in the top flight.

I suspect it's more complex than that. I was considered tall when I was young, and quite athletic. While I'm still taller than average I am now much closer to the average because the whole general population has changed, for a variety of reasons. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/27/sport/rugby-sporting-physique-compared...

This doesn't mean those sports are not drug-fuelled - I've no idea - it just means you can't come to that conclusion just on the change of size and speed.

srchar wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

The main reason for this is their controlling bodies don't run any real drug testing programmes. Football - chemical factory. Rugby - you're having a laugh, big, ripped, cardio, ok! Tennis - has never given a shit about drug testing. Those caught by drug testing in those sports are victims of politial punishment for annoying the wrong people.

But hey, to Joe Public they're all clean as a whistle. These are the same idiots that believe Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman just ate a lot of chicken and steam vegetables to put muscle on and if you go to gym and buy Maximuscle products, you to will look like a steroid user. 

Professionalism and the accompanying incentive to use drugs has completely transformed the game of rugby.  In the mid-90s, the top players didn't look particularly out of the ordinary in terms of size and musculature.  They were clearly strong guys, but they weren't bulky like modern players.  I'm thinking of Carling, Guscott, Andrew, Underwood.   The props were big, but they were also slow.  Someone like Jonah Lomu was considered a genetic freak.  Nowadays, the pitch is full of Jonah Lomus.  They all weigh seventeen stone and run 100m in 11 seconds.  It has completely changed how the game is played, and not just in the top flight.

Of course, there are sports where athletes use performance-enhancing drugs with the full knowledge not just of the officials, but the spectators too...

2015/16 English premiership rugby union season saw 213 drug tests across all teams across the full season with 4 positive tests for performance enhancing drugs. Personally I think that is quite a low number of tests. Whilst league is far from clean and we've oiked a few out for cocaine use including two international players last season (and a few championship/league one players for other doping misuses), it's the massive change in union where it's most noticeable, however the backs and indeed the forwards can be massive in union because the ball is out of play for so long, it's basically akin to gridiron. Look at league players and even the big forwards are very lean and not ridiculously OTT size/muscle wise aside from the odd Pacific islander. 

However the rumours and idle chat even at tier 4 level union sounds to me like playing within the rules is being ignored quite regularly and I've have no reason to doubt the lure of the advantage as it gets higher up the ladder is any different. Rugby union just like golf, tennis, soccer, cricket and indeed athletics has such an awful lot of money at stake, protection of the investment is tantamount to everything else, you just need to look at Sebastian Coe's lies over the Russian doping scandal and that exposing British drug cheats in athletics is simply not on. 

whereas cycling is small potatoes as is rugby league by comparison.

As I said league is far from clean and they like any other professional sport will go as far as they can within the letter of the 'laws' as every single cycling team do too and I believe that cycling is the most rigorously tested of all.

I hope what comes from this is that the rules are changed to reflect the facts ragarding Salbutamol and if need be pro cyclists that were dealt with in the past will have their cases reviewed.

srchar wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

The main reason for this is their controlling bodies don't run any real drug testing programmes. Football - chemical factory. Rugby - you're having a laugh, big, ripped, cardio, ok! Tennis - has never given a shit about drug testing. Those caught by drug testing in those sports are victims of politial punishment for annoying the wrong people.

But hey, to Joe Public they're all clean as a whistle. These are the same idiots that believe Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman just ate a lot of chicken and steam vegetables to put muscle on and if you go to gym and buy Maximuscle products, you to will look like a steroid user. 

Professionalism and the accompanying incentive to use drugs has completely transformed the game of rugby.  In the mid-90s, the top players didn't look particularly out of the ordinary in terms of size and musculature.  They were clearly strong guys, but they weren't bulky like modern players.  I'm thinking of Carling, Guscott, Andrew, Underwood.   The props were big, but they were also slow.  Someone like Jonah Lomu was considered a genetic freak.  Nowadays, the pitch is full of Jonah Lomus.  They all weigh seventeen stone and run 100m in 11 seconds.  It has completely changed how the game is played, and not just in the top flight.

Of course, there are sports where athletes use performance-enhancing drugs with the full knowledge not just of the officials, but the spectators too...

 

trust me UNDERWOOD was built like brickshit house, saw him a lot when he was flying at Wyton.

KINGHORN wrote:

trust me UNDERWOOD was built like brickshit house, saw him a lot when he was flying at Wyton.

R.Underwood was a very good athlete for his time but in no way was he built like a brick shithouse, he'd get absolutely smashed by most halves these days, that's the difference, gym bunnies that are at it all the time, he was one of the last amateurs. Carling and most of the others were professionals in all but name.

A440 wrote:

This has now gone far beyond ridiculous. Froome is being given special treatment, perhaps because Sky left briefcases of cash on someone's back porch.

The sooner Froome and Sky are gone from cycling, the better it will be for the sport.

Am sure they use Jiffy bags ...

A440 wrote:

This has now gone far beyond ridiculous. Froome is being given special treatment, perhaps because Sky left briefcases of cash on someone's back porch.

The sooner Froome and Sky are gone from cycling, the better it will be for the sport.

Maybe all the teams should be banned, then we'd know the sport was clean.