Kimmage Interviews Froome

[Andrew Steer]

Funny that for all SKY beat the "clean drum" they have not signed up to become a member of the MPCC?

Their party line on that is that their standards are well above those set out by the MPCC...

[Wyatt Earp]

Anybody reading all about this at the Clinic on Cycling news forum, also a colourful discussion about the Fround's interview. I thought aliens don't need outside assistance.

Seriously, on last year's TdF, a red flag was raised when Sky ostensibly cheated, giving Froome goo, or finishing additive, on the climb, when he apparently bonked. Paid the fine, admitting to breaking the rules, hey but we need to win. The peleton struggled on, abiding by the rules. This is when I started to lose respect for the Sky Train and their marketing of clean cycling. Cheating is cheating.

 

"Finishing additive" LOL

 

I think the rule was more in accordance with when the "food" was given as opposed to what was given.

[Broker]

Did Oscar Pistorius use an inhaler??

See comment previously made

Edited July 2, 2014 by Broker

[carbon29er]

Their party line on that is that their standards are well above those set out by the MPCC...

Apparently....but we've seem they are not.

[Paul Ruinaard]

My Froome Dawg loyalty is somewhat shaken by this interview. Probably a good thing though. I needed to catch a wake up as I was getting all excited about him like i was about LA.

 

Compare this to the same stage in LA's career and all the naivety that followed him around because the dream had to be real and the fairy tale true.

 

I think there is a lot of smoke here: When that gets a bit of oxygen its going to turn in to flames. And all little boys who play with flames...

 

Because that's what this interview makes him out to look like - a naive kid.

 

That and his inability to grow a pair - he has his PR/wife handling him like a puppet.

 

I think that the guy really needs to clear up who he is and what he stands for. His handlers are busy manipulating him and when (not if) there is a fall he will be personally liable, not them. Naivety doesn't hack it at this level. Naivety buys you manipulation and bad outcomes where the people riding on his coat tails giving him bad advice will fade in to the woodwork.

 

Another sad day in cycling when you realize that there is still a huge amount of corruption in this level of sport and that it is still as dirty as it ever was.

[rouxtjie]

Apparently....but we've seem they are not.

sentiment exactly....at the tour de fochville they squeeky but up the stakes and all that flies out the window

[Andrew Steer]

My biggest problem with Sky has always been the man at the helm... Brailsford comes from track cycling which is pretty much on a par with WWF. I like Chris, I love the idea of clean cycling, but I do fear it is just a pipe dream

[nochain]

Anybody reading all about this at the Clinic on Cycling news forum, also a colourful discussion about the Fround's interview. I thought aliens don't need outside assistance.

Seriously, on last year's TdF, a red flag was raised when Sky ostensibly chea

ted, giving Froome goo, or finishing additive, on the climb, when he apparently bonked. Paid the fine, admitting to breaking the rules, hey but we need to win. The peleton struggled on, abiding by the rules. This is when I started to lose respect for the Sky Train and their marketing of clean cycling. Cheating is cheating.

 

There is not a team in the pro peleton that has not broken that rule(feeding in the last x number of km)..in most cases they just turn a blind eye and the rest just pay the fine.

 

Everybody focus on sky because they win...half the pro's ride with some sort of a Tue at some stage during the year and nobody says a thing.

Would love to know how many asthma pumps gets used in races during a year but believe me it is many hundreds!

Edited July 2, 2014 by nochain

[rouxtjie]

There is not a team in the pro peleton that has not broken that rule(feeding in the last x number of km)..in most cases they just turn a blind eye and the rest just pay the fine.

 

Everybody focus on sky because they win...half the pro's ride with some sort of a Tue at some stage during the year and nobody says a thing.

Would love to know how many asthma pumps gets used in races during a year but believe me it is many hundreds!

Wrong, they get focused on because they want us to believe their own internal rules and policies are so much better than other teams....yet they bend them when the stakes are high.

[nochain]

 

Wrong, they get focused on because they want us to believe their own internal rules and policies are so much better than other teams....yet they bend them when the stakes are high.

I agree but if you are going to not support a guy for using a tue or a asthma pump or a team for feeding at the wrong time then you should apply that to all riders and teams.Not just the ones that public state they are this and that.

All of them tell us they abide by the rules and they support clean cycling and have a no needles policy or is part of this body of ethics and so on.

There is just 10 times as much media focus on Sky and their riders.

[rouxtjie]

I agree but if you are going to not support a guy for using a tue or a asthma pump or a team for feeding at the wrong time then you should apply that to all riders and teams.Not just the ones that public state they are this and that.

All of them tell us they abide by the rules and they support clean cycling and have a no needles policy or is part of this body of ethics and so on.

There is just 10 times as much media focus on Sky and their riders.

The other teams don't claim to be cleaner that is the difference....that is why I would rather support them.

[Joe!]

Your examples of the guy with the foot or contact lenses still remains fair given the athlete receives treatment. The contact lenses or inserts have little to no impact on the main "skillset / attributes required" to perform or win at an elite level. Dopers gained advantage in the departments listed in a previous post. Those are the problem children so to speak and again it would be nice if there was a zero tolerance view there because of the abuse we know exists. But where do you draw the line...where is enough...enough.

 

wrt to froomes asthma pump one has to ask if he then really is the best of the best considering his birth defect. a birth defect which medication influences the cardio system, if I took medication that will up my power output and retain muscle mass whilst cutting fat(some testo flavour) because I have low testosterone levels in my body(valid medical condition) does this make it fair to the guy that i beat by 1 second in the tdf because I have a TUE....who is the better athlete.

 

So to use your example, the UCI will not give you a TUE for testosterone simply because it is performance-enhancing. Chris Boardman had the same issue and needed to use testosterone & had to retire as he was not allowed to use it even though he has a medical condition & required it for treatment.

 

The drugs that Froome uses for his asthma is not performance-enhancing when used correctly to treat asthma.

 

But lets say he decides to over-use his asthma drugs (Salbutamol or Ventolin) then in any event this would be picked up on the regular dope tests. This happened back in 2002 when WADA picked up that Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (who suffers from asthma) had higher than normal readings for Salbutamol.

 

The point is that if the readings are not comparable with the regular use of asthma medicine then the rider will be disqualified.

 

The controversy with Froome has nothing to do with his inhaler or asthma. The issue relates to the issuing of the TUE on the day that the Tour of Romandie started for prednisolone (which is a corticosteroid on the banned list) to treat his chest infection.

 

I appreciate your point that if an athlete has a "disability" and needs chronic medicine / equipment in order to compete with other athletes then he should in any event not be competing as this would (according to you) automatically give him an "advantage" which he naturally did not have. I disagree and say that he may use the medicine / equipment provided that it doesn't provide an unfair advantage. As to what is fair/ unfair we have the banned substances list and the TUE application process, doping control etc.

 

This is the same argument that Oscar Pistorius had when he wanted to compete at the London Olympics, ie did his prosthesis provide him with an unfair advantage over his competitors.

[E1A104]

If he was that sick that he needed prednisolone to get on the bike, should he have been riding at all??

[rouxtjie]

 

But lets say he decides to over-use his asthma drugs (Salbutamol or Ventolin) then in any event this would be picked up on the regular dope tests. This happened back in 2002 when WADA picked up that Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (who suffers from asthma) had higher than normal readings for Salbutamol.

 

The point is that if the readings are not comparable with the regular use of asthma medicine then the rider will be disqualified.

 

The controversy with Froome has nothing to do with his inhaler or asthma. The issue relates to the issuing of the TUE on the day that the Tour of Romandie started for prednisolone (which is a corticosteroid on the banned list) to treat his chest infection.

 

I appreciate your point that if an athlete has a "disability" and needs chronic medicine / equipment in order to compete with other athletes then he should in any event not be competing as this would (according to you) automatically give him an "advantage" which he naturally did not have. I disagree and say that he may use the medicine / equipment provided that it doesn't provide an unfair advantage. As to what is fair/ unfair we have the banned substances list and the TUE application process, doping control etc.

 

So let me understand this...

 

19 hits of Salbutamol is ok and add zero advantage, but that one extra hit makes it unfair. That is the part I dont understand. Like i said before, fair seems to be in the eye of the beholder and the UCI shares your view in any case....hence its not illegal and above board. My view though is that it isn't fair...and opens up a window for people to abuse which isnt fair to anyone.

 

I respect your view and it has some very good counter arguments wrt where do you draw the line, its just not the same as mine.