The Chris Froome/ Team Sky Humble Pie Shop

davel wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

davel wrote:

If I have a nibble is there a risk of an AAF?

That depends on how many nibbles in a 24 hour period and your state of dehydration. I hear that humble pie is very dry and hard to swallow. 

Purely medicinal: without it I get carried away with how awesome I am, and ride up mountains repeatedly and stuff. I'm confident I will be exonerated of everything except being awesome and I can replicate anything because that's how awesome I am.

@davel (with apologies to road.cc for probable copyright infringement)

CygnusX1 wrote:

davel wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

davel wrote:

If I have a nibble is there a risk of an AAF?

That depends on how many nibbles in a 24 hour period and your state of dehydration. I hear that humble pie is very dry and hard to swallow. 

Purely medicinal: without it I get carried away with how awesome I am, and ride up mountains repeatedly and stuff. I'm confident I will be exonerated of everything except being awesome and I can replicate anything because that's how awesome I am.

@davel (with apologies to road.cc for probable copyright infringement)

 

I like you. Let's take this offline...

captain_slog wrote:

I thought that the AAF would be upheld and a short ban imposed, eg four months. This would be backdated, meaning Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep the Giro and be allowed to race the Tour. But I also thought that the salbutamol regulations would be reviewed, meaning Froome could claim a moral victory and so everyone would be happy.

I couldn't see how he could prove his high salbutamol level wasn't an AAF. The only defence we've heard so far has been his assertion that he 'did nothing wrong'. I assume more details will emerge. But if WADA and the UCI accept his innocence I guess that's going to have to be good enough for me. They're the experts and have access to all the evidence and research.

 

I completely accept their judgement and I'm pleased he's been cleared, just don't quite see how. Unless there is another medical condition which they can't tell us out for reasons of patient confidentiality it would be good if they'd provide a detailed analysis of their ruling. Given how so many WorldTour pros have asthma I'm sure they'd appreciate clarity on the number of puffs they're allowed to take. 

700c wrote:

Martyn good idea but more chance of hell freezing than people admitting they're wrong

Is it really too much to ask for so-called adults, even if they don't admit publicly to being wrong, to actually learn something or have their blinkered preconceptions challenged?

I'm not asking for 4 pages of 'sorry', that's not necessary. just wish people could have a grown-up discussion instead of resorting to insults and mudslinging because they don't want to think. Far too much of a pre-school playground mentality.

And I'm not being smug. Far from it, there's no vindication as I never had a firm opinion either way.

captain_slog wrote:

I couldn't see how he could prove his high salbutamol level wasn't an AAF. The only defence we've heard so far has been his assertion that he 'did nothing wrong'. I assume more details will emerge. But if WADA and the UCI accept his innocence I guess that's going to have to be good enough for me. They're the experts and have access to all the evidence and research

We are not party to the process and have to trust those who run the system. If you don't trust the UCI, WADA et al then we might as well give up and either (1) see it purely as a sporting spectacle and ignore the doping stories or (2) find another source of entertainment.

Meanwhile the BBC has published an interview with Richard Freeman [transcript]. The timing stinks - his book is due out this week - but he has made some strong statements. And before the knuckleddraggers start stoning him too, bear in mind that he might, just might be telling the truth.

Simon E wrote:

700c wrote:

Martyn good idea but more chance of hell freezing than people admitting they're wrong

Is it really too much to ask for so-called adults, even if they don't admit publicly to being wrong, to actually learn something or have their blinkered preconceptions challenged?

I'm not asking for 4 pages of 'sorry', that's not necessary. just wish people could have a grown-up discussion instead of resorting to insults and mudslinging because they don't want to think. Far too much of a pre-school playground mentality.

And I'm not being smug. Far from it, there's no vindication as I never had a firm opinion either way.

captain_slog wrote:

I couldn't see how he could prove his high salbutamol level wasn't an AAF. The only defence we've heard so far has been his assertion that he 'did nothing wrong'. I assume more details will emerge. But if WADA and the UCI accept his innocence I guess that's going to have to be good enough for me. They're the experts and have access to all the evidence and research

As I wise man once said:

"There's no point having a mind if you never change it..."

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Where is 'The Doctor'? Facing a malpractice case probably.

Eat that pie.

You want to pre-judge that outcome too?

700c wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Where is 'The Doctor'? Facing a malpractice case probably.

Eat that pie.

You want to pre-judge that outcome too?

Think that's a call out for a user on here called 'The Doctor' who is a team sky hater rather than a qualified GP...

alansmurphy wrote:

700c wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Where is 'The Doctor'? Facing a malpractice case probably.

Eat that pie.

You want to pre-judge that outcome too?

 

Think that's a call out for a user on here called 'The Doctor' who is a team sky hater rather than a qualified GP...

In which case I take it back

kil0ran wrote:

A deal has been done somewhere. The damage to the sport (and the salaries of the UCI) would have been too great to push for a ban. 

Cream or custard?

alansmurphy wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

A deal has been done somewhere. The damage to the sport (and the salaries of the UCI) would have been too great to push for a ban. 

 

Cream or custard?

Custard please. Birds, on the thick side.

alansmurphy wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

A deal has been done somewhere. The damage to the sport (and the salaries of the UCI) would have been too great to push for a ban. 

 

Cream or custard?

...not quite sure either goes well with Badger Pie...