Kimmage Interviews Froome

[SwissVan]

I take most of what SwissVan says about doping and his defending dopers with a huge pinch of salt. After all he was one of the last to accept that LA was a doper. Here we go again defending at every opportunity. Maybe just contrary and naive?

 

I don't have a VO2 max that makes me an elite athlete, but I don't try justify why I am entitled to take drugs to compensate for the hand nature dealt me. I can't ride singletrack particularly fast and I fall when I do. So I try not to ride singletrack too fast. That is how life is.

 

Its not about you....or me....or LA....

 

MC was a HUGE LA fan, slagged off anyone who alleged he doped. CF is her meal ticket, she'll do anything to keep his image as the clean one.

 

OMG you still going on about LA...MOVE ON and stick to the current argument about CF and his asthma problems

 

 

They should be allowed for sure. But you have to ask yourself....if you suffer from asthma.....is cycling the sport for you???? To me that is a no brainer. If you had asthma at school, you got to sit out all physical activity. Just as I am not creative enough to be a painter, some people don't have the body for sport.

 

Yes its a ok to cycle or do any sport, provided you take the right precautions

 

School sports policies...now thats dragging the bottom of the barrel for scientific evidence, maybe its only because schools are scared you might scare the other kids and your dads lawyer is bigger than theirs?

 

Circle argument guys, the inhaler doesn't improve performance ...

Here let me help you

http://bit.ly/1rSLPcF

 

Cool point Joe, at last some one who gets it...

There is no way in hell an asthma sufferer has an advantage, just ask any asthma sufferer

[SwissVan]

Simple test / comparison between 2 elite level athletes with equal capabilities:

Cyclist A is your 100% healthy elite cyclist with no genetic flaws / health issues.

Cyclist C is your froome type asthma sufferer.

If you could choose one, which would it be?

 

EDIT:

 

And why?

Edited July 1, 2014 by SwissVan

[rouxtjie]

 

There is no way in hell an asthma sufferer has an advantage, just ask any asthma sufferer

His medication allows him to be better than himself without it....not his condition...

[rouxtjie]

Simple test / comparison between 2 elite level athletes with equal capabilities:

Cyclist A is your 100% healthy elite cyclist with no genetic flaws / health issues.

Cyclist C is your froome type asthma sufferer.

If you could choose one, which would it be?

choose...??

 

To be or to support

[SwissVan]

choose...??

 

To be or to support

 

To be, you know like when you wish and hope it comes true

[davetapson]

Maybe the point being made is that sure, there is no advantage to being an asthma sufferer, but there is an advantage to seeming to be an asthma sufferer...

[Joe!]

 

His medication allows him to be better than himself without it....not his condition...

 

Your arguments make no sense at all. Thats not cheating. Cheating in sports is the intentional breaking of rules in order to obtain an advantage over the other teams or players.

 

His asthma pump is not a performance enhancing drug. You cannot penalise him simply because he has asthma!

[rouxtjie]

To be, you know like when you wish and hope it comes true

Well obviously the one without the chronic conditions... but like the sheriff said, this is pie in the sky stuff...there is no perfect human being...the pinnacle of our evolutionary path, mankind's concord moment if you will.

['Dale]

Nice attempt at being transparent by Froome Dawg.

Don't understand the role that his partner is playing in his PRO career - exceeding many many boundaries which is uncool.

 

Being a champ in these times come with the intense scrutiny and demand accountability.

Take it or leave it.

Suck it up, cupcake

[rouxtjie]

Your arguments make no sense at all. Thats not cheating. Cheating in sports is the intentional breaking of rules in order to obtain an advantage over the other teams or players.

 

His asthma pump is not a performance enhancing drug. You cannot penalise him simply because he has asthma!

Not sure why it doesnt make sense to you....let me make it simpler

 

He is faster with the pump that without...end van prent. That is an advantage

[Joe!]

 

Not sure why it doesnt make sense to you....let me make it simpler

 

He is faster with the pump that without...end van prent. That is an advantage

 

Point is (1) its not unfair (2) its not against the rules

[Red Zone]

Why cant the dudes just play it old school, deny, deny, deny, threaten to sue, bribe the UCI and employ the best doctors.

 

This nonsense of trying to hide behind TUE's, excuses of asthema, bilharzia, skin allergies and whatnot is just plain insulting. CF dont tell me that you dont know the history of the sport, never looked at a blood passport, dont know what Vinokurov was bust for, dont want to do a V02 max test on principle bla bla bla.

 

This is a house of pharmaceutical cards waiting to come crashing down.

[SwissVan]

Well obviously the one without the chronic conditions... but like the sheriff said, this is pie in the sky stuff...there is no perfect human being...the pinnacle of our evolutionary path, mankind's concord moment if you will.

 

Exactly, where do u draw the line...how many athletes have / take medication or had surgery to correct some sort of genetic medical issue....should the rules be changed so they can be stopped from competeing?

[rouxtjie]

Point is (1) its not unfair (2) its not against the rules

Point 1....this is up to your tolerance of what is perceived to be fair or not. For me, it is unfair, to you it is fair.

Point 2....Agreed, never said it wasn't against the rules. All is above board ito UCI rules.

[rouxtjie]

Exactly, where do u draw the line...how many athletes have / take medication or had surgery to correct some sort of genetic medical issue....should the rules be changed so they can be stopped from competeing?

Good debate swiss but you will notice that I did mention in competition...that is the key really. Out of competition meds and surgery is fair imo. When you are sick / popped an appendix etc etc take medicine to get you back to the place where you dont need them to compete...however if you need them whilst you are competing I say its unfair

Edited July 1, 2014 by rouxtjie

[SwissVan]

Good debate swiss but you will notice that I did mention in competition...that is the key really. Out of competition meds and surgery is fair imo. When you are sick / popped an appendix etc etc take medicine to get you back to the place where you dont need them to compete...however if you need them whilst you are competing I say its unfair

 

 

Thats how i understood / meant it, amongest pro athetes (even tho its a bit hippo to treat pro's different just because they are pro's) and not only refering to things that go wrong like appendix but rather genetic issues they were born with.

 

Another example, a pro athelete who was born severly short sighted, should he be allowed to compete if he wear contacts / glasses or (heaven forbid) had corrective laser surgery?