Giro d'Italia 2018 stage 19: Venaria Reale – Jafferau 184km

pelevin

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

As I said. Regardless of what you think of him, the rules permit him to ride until the case is heard and defend himself if he chooses to do so.

Doesn't mean people aren't allowed feel sick to their stomachs about that team and their endless hypocrisy.

RobFowl

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

As I said. Regardless of what you think of him, the rules permit him to ride until the case is heard and defend himself if he chooses to do so.

They also permit the UCI to provisionally suspend him pending a hearing....

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

They also permit the UCI to provisionally suspend him pending a hearing....

True. But they could also open themselves up to accusations of treating him differently to Yates and Ulissi et. al.

Inquitus

I can just imagine the furore when Froome gets off the Salbutamol charge lol.

RobFowl

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

True. But they could also open themselves up to accusations of treating him differently to Yates and Ulissi et. al.

Yates and Ulissi admitted it straight up and in Ulissi's case arranged a controlled test. They both co-operated fully at every stage...

Brian?

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

As I said. Regardless of what you think of him, the rules permit him to ride until the case is heard and defend himself if he chooses to do so.

The rules should be changed. It’s ridiculous

RobFowl

Inquitus wrote: »

I can just imagine the furore when Froome gets off the Salbutamol charge lol.

Nah, Cookson is gone....

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

Yates and Ulissi admitted it straight up and in Ulissi's case arranged a controlled test. They both co-operated fully at every stage...

Correct. And even though Yates admitted he was at fault he was still allowed compete. It would be bizarre then for the UCI to ban someone who pleading innocence, when someone who pleaded guilty was still allowed ride.

RobFowl

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Correct. And even though Yates admitted he was at fault he was still allowed compete. It would be bizarre then for the UCI to ban someone who pleading innocence, when someone who pleaded guilty was still allowed ride.

The difference was that he got no benefit and the issue was more a doctors failure to submit a TUE application which they accepted would have been approved.
Even with a TUE Froome's levels would not have been permitted.

Chips Lovell

They're still the same category of doping infraction, so they should be treated the same.

MPFGLB

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

They're still the same category of doping infraction, so they should be treated the same.

They are treated the same but the riders and teams acted differntly

Because some rules allow certain action doesn tmean you have to chose to follow that path

Chips Lovell

As I said, I think the UCI would find itself in a difficult position if it treated people who pleaded guilty more leniently than someone who said they were innocent.

RobFowl

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

As I said, I think the UCI would find itself in a difficult position if it treated people who pleaded guilty more leniently than someone who said they were innocent.

The system has been designed to give those who co-operate and admit a reduced sanction.
They are automatically given credit for that and treated more leniently as a result.

Inquitus

RobFowl wrote: »

The system has been designed to give those who co-operate and admit a reduced sanction.
They are automatically given credit for that and treated more leniently as a result.

Froome's finding should not have been leaked in the first place by the UCI. Its been a clusterféck from start to finish this one.

RobFowl

Inquitus wrote: »

Froome's finding should not have been leaked in the first place by the UCI.

If he had arranged a controlled test and co-operated I'm sure it wouldn't have been.

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

The system has been designed to give those who co-operate and admit a reduced sanction.
They are automatically given credit for that and treated more leniently as a result.

But that's post verdict. His guilt has yet to be established. I'd be very surprised if he didn't get a longer ban than Yates if he is found guilty, because he contested it.

MPFGLB

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

As I said, I think the UCI would find itself in a difficult position if it treated people who pleaded guilty more leniently than someone who said they were innocent.

Not asking the UCI to treat them differently

Asking the teams to react the same

Quite simple really

RobFowl

RobFowl wrote: »

If he had arranged a controlled test and co-operated I'm sure it wouldn't have been.

He's not just not co-operating, he's actively fighting to avoid a hearing at all.

Kaisr Sose

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

His contention is that he did nothing wrong, that he didn’t take in excess of the permitted dose and he couldn’t know he’d test for higher. Now whatever you think about that, surely he should be a.) allowed mount a defense and b.) be allowed ride until it concludes as the rules permit. Scott acknowledged they did something wrong. In Sky’s place they’re saying they don’t believe they did.

So, he is “doing a Lance” with this spirited defence and denial (admitedly Lance had no adverse finding to answer that a swift retrospective TUE did not explain)

On the bike, blasting rivals away and then denying there is anything unusual a about it. Nothing to see here, move along and if you say anything, you are a troll or worse.

None of what is happening here is helpful to the image of cycling.

Weepsie

Also, if it is true that Froome and Sky specifically asked for yesterday to be neutralized, then they kind of says it all about them as a team and as sportspeople.

Chips Lovell

I agree. But you can't deny the guy due process because of that.

lissard

Phillipa York absolutely nailed it in this article.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/philippa-york-chris-froome-and-trying-to-understand-the-unbelievable/

Lumen

lissard wrote: »

Phillipa York absolutely nailed it in this article.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/philippa-york-chris-froome-and-trying-to-understand-the-unbelievable/

Philippa York wrote:

The Giro, meanwhile, rolled on and Simon Yates was in control, clearly the strongest climber and riding exceptionally well. As an emerging talent who always rode aggressively, things looked normal.

Not here they didn't. It's worth reviewing the chit chat from stage 14.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057873659

Specifically, a number of mod interventions to snip doping speculation.

Then Yates cracked and everyone moved on.

at1withmyself

Lumen wrote: »

Then Yates cracked and everyone moved on.

nah I think most still believe he was also on the juice, just Froome's legendary comeback took central stage. A lot articles still question Yates performance, rightly so.

pelevin

lissard wrote: »

Phillipa York absolutely nailed it in this article.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/philippa-york-chris-froome-and-trying-to-understand-the-unbelievable/

Surprisingly strong in views expressed in that piece. Seems to find Froome's victory very "unbelievable."

fishfoodie

pelevin wrote: »

Surprisingly strong in views expressed in that piece. Seems to find Froome's victory very "unbelievable."

Especially when it was written on the clinic

I'd like to see some sponsors threaten to pull out of the Tour if Froome is allowed to ride, still under this same cloud.

Neither the UCI, nor Sky give a tinkers curse what any of us think; but watch them jump if a Visa, or a Coke, so much as raises an eyebrow. That's what it took to get FIFA to make some changes.

Macy0161

Just started the Bespoke "How the giro was won". One thing that struck me in the first few minutes was when they were discussing the recovery from the crash and trying to manage the fuel for recovery, fuel for recovery from the injury and also manage weight. Brailsford stated that their riders report/ record a "log" of how they're feeling and their weight daily. Haven't they claimed before they don't know his weight when there's a debate on his power to weight?

neris

That bespoke things a joke. A free promo for sky while the BBC brown nose them.

Macy0161

neris wrote: »

That bespoke things a joke. A free promo for sky while the BBC brown nose them.

Some. I'd say it depends - I thought the daily ones were quite good during the Giro, with Fordyce and Jeremy Whittle (who can hardly be described as a sky fanboy). The normal ones with Rob Hayles on the other hand...

Anyway, the point was really about whether I'm making up another contradiction from Sky, or whether anyone else recalls them claiming not to know Froome's weight?

Lumen

Macy0161 wrote: »

Anyway, the point was really about whether I'm making up another contradiction from Sky, or whether anyone else recalls them claiming not to know Froome's weight?

Not sure about that. They claimed they didn't measure VO2Max, which is normally expressed with a weight component.

There are some references to weight in the 2014 Kimmage interview

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html

"I had always raced on Barloworld at about 70/71 (kgs) and I think I got down to about 69 in my first year at Sky."

And in this IT article

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/huge-weight-loss-the-key-to-chris-froome-transformation-1.2454343

"Froome hit the scales at 75.6kg in 2007 and slimmed down to a racing trim of 67kg in 2015, while maintaining a similar sustained power output."

2007 was Team Konica Minolta so he would have needed to drop from almost 76kg to 70-71kg in one year.

But back to the Kimmage interview

"I’ve done one VO2 test I think in 2007 with the UCI school (in Aigle). The results were online - I think my VO2 was between 80 and 85, and that would have been at about 70 kilos. VO2 is weight specific, so take away 4 kilos and that could possibly raise it I guess, I don’t know."

So was he 70kg or 76kg at Konica Minolta ?