Author Topic: Sky - gaming the system? (Read 189245 times)

citoyen · « **Reply #1250 on:** 27 May, 2018, 07:13:02 pm »

Quote from: Flatus on 27 May, 2018, 09:56:52 am

Actually Matt, we do, because most teams signed up to the MPCC.

Not even close. From the MPCC's own website:

38%
WORLD TOUR TEAMS IN 2018 :
7 MPCC's members on 18 teams

81%
PRO-CONTINENTAL TEAMS IN 2018 :
22 MPCC's members on 27 teams

4%
CONTINENTAL TEAMS IN 2018 :
7 MPCC's members on 173 teams

13%
WOMEN TEAMS IN 2018 :
6 MPCC's members on 46 teams

ref: https://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/mpcc-uk

Hot Flatus · « **Reply #1251 on:** 27 May, 2018, 07:33:23 pm »

45% of Giro teams. So yes, not most.

Some big name withdrawals from the MPCC since the Wiggins TUE affair

quixoticgeek · « **Reply #1252 on:** 02 July, 2018, 01:45:47 pm »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/44679483

Case against Froome has been dropped.

Let the sky haters continue...

J

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #1253 on:** 02 July, 2018, 02:26:46 pm »

He and Sky are still dopers. Good enough for you?

quixoticgeek · « **Reply #1254 on:** 02 July, 2018, 02:34:23 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 02 July, 2018, 02:26:46 pm

He and Sky are still dopers. Good enough for you?

Was hoping for more erudition, but that works...

J

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #1255 on:** 02 July, 2018, 02:37:28 pm »

Reality doesn't need fanciful phrases. I'll leave that to the bullshitters.

quixoticgeek · « **Reply #1256 on:** 02 July, 2018, 02:38:30 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 02 July, 2018, 02:37:28 pm

Reality doesn't need fanciful phrases. I'll leave that to the bullshitters.

Perhaps it was more verbosity I was expecting...

J

citoyen · « **Reply #1257 on:** 02 July, 2018, 03:54:33 pm »

Quote from: quixoticgeek on 02 July, 2018, 02:38:30 pm

Perhaps it was more verbosity I was expecting...

That's Dave Brailsford's department.

Ian H · « **Reply #1258 on:** 02 July, 2018, 04:46:59 pm »

Professional cycling just as it's always been.

Personally I'd like to ban team radios.

Karla · « **Reply #1259 on:** 02 July, 2018, 04:52:54 pm »

Boo. I hope he loses.

mattc · « **Reply #1260 on:** 02 July, 2018, 05:02:22 pm »

Quote from: Karla on 02 July, 2018, 04:52:54 pm

Boo. I hope he loses.

Wow. THAT is news.

Charlie Polecat · « **Reply #1261 on:** 02 July, 2018, 05:13:48 pm »

Well that's good, now perhaps we can concentrate on enjoying the cycling.

mzjo · « **Reply #1262 on:** 02 July, 2018, 05:17:06 pm »

I think that that statement has a few pertinent facts.

WADA decided there was no AAF based on the weight of the Sky legal team lined up against the UCI.

There was no pharmacokinetic study done. (Not possible they say).

The whole arguement to drop the case appears to be based on theory. (What took all this time then? Will The Lancet be publishing some research papers to explain what's new?)

Having decided that there was no case to answer, WADA would not appeal the UCI dropping the case (can someone explain why it was necessary for them to say that, unless it's a fop to the oppositions legal team).

Dan Roan has it right when he says that Froome still presents a public order risk on the Tour (and I would add, to the other riders as well as to himself).

I love the bit about Froome always trying to conduct himself as a leader - and his farts smell of roses as well I suppose, although I am not offering to find out.

He might be clean but this doesn't take us any closer to a definitive proof.

Hot Flatus · « **Reply #1263 on:** 02 July, 2018, 05:25:36 pm »

A cyclist can never prove they are clean. All they can do is prove they haven't failed a test.

I haven't read the statement yet. It won't affect my opinion of Froome anyway because I've always regarded the Salbutamol case as fairly inconsequential compared to what I suspect the man does in order to win.

Hot Flatus · « **Reply #1264 on:** 02 July, 2018, 06:43:11 pm »

Just read the statement. It provides no evidence as to why this decision was reached.

Here is what Parisotto has to say...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/clearing-chris-froome-lacks-credibility-without-providing-evidence-says-anti-doping-expert/

Froome is saying details will be released in due course.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #1265 on:** 02 July, 2018, 08:15:13 pm »

So in 9 to 12 months then?

DaveJ · « **Reply #1266 on:** 02 July, 2018, 10:31:48 pm »

Quote from: Hot Flatus on 02 July, 2018, 06:43:11 pm

Just read the statement. It provides no evidence as to why this decision was reached.

Here is what Parisotto has to say...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/clearing-chris-froome-lacks-credibility-without-providing-evidence-says-anti-doping-expert/

Froome is saying details will be released in due course.

And that article in its first paragraph, says that the Froome sample contained twice the permitted level of Salbutamol, without saying that once the levels had been corrected for concentration caused by dehydration, it was was 1,429ng/ml. Sloppy and misleading reporting.

quixoticgeek · « **Reply #1267 on:** 02 July, 2018, 10:40:20 pm »

Am I the only person out there that thinks that everyone who hasn't failed a drug test is innocent? Am I naive for thinking that Froome is clean and just a good athlete? Marianne Vos is clearly the greatest pro cyclist of our generation, but the results of Froome are almost on an equal. Do we have to point the finger and say it's all from pharmacy? or can we just, for a minute, conclude that he's a good cyclist?

J

Ian H · « **Reply #1268 on:** 02 July, 2018, 10:42:32 pm »

Quote from: quixoticgeek on 02 July, 2018, 10:40:20 pm

Am I the only person out there that thinks that everyone who hasn't failed a drug test is innocent? Am I naive for thinking that Froome is clean and just a good athlete? Marianne Vos is clearly the greatest pro cyclist of our generation, but the results of Froome are almost on an equal. Do we have to point the finger and say it's all from pharmacy? or can we just, for a minute, conclude that he's a good cyclist?

J

Possibly a little naive, but in the greater scheme of things it doesn't actually matter. Enjoy the event.

Hot Flatus · « **Reply #1269 on:** 02 July, 2018, 10:50:01 pm »

^
This.

Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy the racing.

But yes. Naive. Lance Armstrong never failed a test (apart from the one he failed, but paid $100k hush money). Very few big busts have been as a result of anti-doping tests.

mzjo · « **Reply #1270 on:** 02 July, 2018, 10:55:00 pm »

Quote from: quixoticgeek on 02 July, 2018, 10:40:20 pm

Am I the only person out there that thinks that everyone who hasn't failed a drug test is innocent? Am I naive for thinking that Froome is clean and just a good athlete? Marianne Vos is clearly the greatest pro cyclist of our generation, but the results of Froome are almost on an equal. Do we have to point the finger and say it's all from pharmacy? or can we just, for a minute, conclude that he's a good cyclist?

J

Jeannie Longo might dispute that assessment of Marianne Vos (or is it that I am Longo's generation and you are Vos'?) Of course Longo would never dope, her husband just bought the stuff for others

)

andyoxon · « **Reply #1271 on:** 02 July, 2018, 11:29:09 pm »

Quote from: Hot Flatus on 02 July, 2018, 10:50:01 pm

^
This.

Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy the racing.

But yes. Naive. Lance Armstrong never failed a test (apart from the one he failed, but paid $100k hush money). Very few big busts have been as a result of anti-doping tests.

OOI does a 'lens of poetic faith' work for you when watching the TdF?

quixoticgeek · « **Reply #1272 on:** 03 July, 2018, 12:19:53 am »

Quote from: mzjo on 02 July, 2018, 10:55:00 pm

Jeannie Longo might dispute that assessment of Marianne Vos (or is it that I am Longo's generation and you are Vos'?) Of course Longo would never dope, her husband just bought the stuff for others )

Given she is old enough to be my mother, she's very much not my generation.

Vos on the other hand was born less than 5 years after me.

J

Hot Flatus · « **Reply #1273 on:** 03 July, 2018, 12:32:59 am »

Quote from: andyoxon on 02 July, 2018, 11:29:09 pm

Quote from: Hot Flatus on 02 July, 2018, 10:50:01 pm
^
This.

Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy the racing.

But yes. Naive. Lance Armstrong never failed a test (apart from the one he failed, but paid $100k hush money). Very few big busts have been as a result of anti-doping tests.

OOI does a 'lens of poetic faith' work for you when watching the TdF?

In English please.

quixoticgeek · « **Reply #1274 on:** 03 July, 2018, 12:51:31 am »

Quote from: Hot Flatus on 03 July, 2018, 12:32:59 am

In English please.

Glad you asked. I tried googling it and got nothing that seemed relevant.

J