Froome Braces for Doping questions

[NicoBoshoff]

I listened to a debate between Jaques Roussouw and Ross Tucker when the LA thing broke and the point that Roussouw made was that the ban of some PED's is arbitrary and we should not distinguish between some acceptable training techniques, PED's etc. and those we arbitrarily banned, since there is no rational reason for the distinction (all the legal methods and drugs still achive what the PED's aim at, just less effectively or differently or equally so you gain no edge).

 

Tucker responded by stating that this was precisely the point.  It's not about the morality of PED's or being a purist.  It's about abiding by the rules of the sport code you participate in.  Sport rules are arbitrary.  Forward passes in rugby make no rational sense, but those are the rules.  So what?  The issue is whether people are breaking the rules and lying about it.

 

When I heard this, it made it much easier for me.  My cynicism faded and only scepticism remained.  Being sceptic about people's performance needn't be equated to being cynical about the sport - I for one reckon I would have doped if that is what would have given me that 1% needed to compete at that level (unfortunately I am about 95% short...).

 

If they were to legalise all PED's tomorrow and made it a free for all, I would probably get behind competitive cycling even more as a spectator.  I am not so naive to think that these people have to produce the impossible on fairy farts and unicorn giggles.  But at least then I wouldn't have to go "Wow, that's amazing, oh, but please don't try convince me it's all you brother".

 

Now, if there were to be a bombshell about mechanical doping I would struggle to contain my resentment (see my rants about the recent reveals of e-bikes for reference as to where my alliances lie )

[Garfield2010]

 

 

The missed test, I agree that is raises eyebrows, but because Froome missed one test he is guilty? How many tests didn't he miss? Is it only him that missed the test? If not then surely everybody who has missed a test should be persecuted.

 

 

Lets talk about this.  He was upstairs in the hotel and the doping control arrived.  The reception then apparently did not call him as per policy (or that's what he says).

 

Now.... what kind of hotel does not call your room if someone is looking for you at reception?  Did he perhaps ask not to be disturbed or did he perhaps choose not to answer the call if it was in fact being made?

 

Do the doping control people not have his cell number and did they try and call him and if they did why did he not answer?

 

I am not saying everyone who misses a test is guilty but what I am saying is that the circumstances and details in this specific instance does not make sense to me.  If he was not there then it would have made more sense.

 

You position yourselves very conveniently.  You defend Sky vigorously on the same basis as everyone did with Lance in the days of old with the option to walk away if they get caught.  You are obviously pro-sky although you wont admit it.  You are on any anti-sky comment like a rash on this hub.  Don't tell me you are neutral because you are not.

 

It is easy because thus far Sky is clean and no one can argue with your facts.  The fact that they have not tested positive and the fact that they have not been caught.  Unfortunately in this sport facts are not necessary the way to go.  Why do you think they have to make rules like the missing of a doping test.  Seriously what is the difference between missing one test and three? 

 

You have to miss one test before you can miss numbers two and three.

 

Any neutral person with common sense will have doubts considering the history of the sport and the trends all things considered.

[Barend de Arend]

Because of the following:-

 

Froome missed a test.  I find the explanation worrying that the hotel reception failed to call him.  This a hotel in Italy where cyclist stay all the time and they should know of better.  Did they call him and why did he not answer?

 

How do you know it's a hotel where cyclists stay all the time?  The info I have is "exclusive hotel."  Surprisingly only a few cyclists make lots of money.  I don't have the hotel name, though.

 

Even if it's a hotel that cyclists stay at all the time, what do you think is going to happen when a tester shows up at reception early in the morning?  Most hotels will think of the guest first, unless it's police.  Most hotels do not give out room information.  This is exacerbated by testers wanting to stay incognito as long as possible.

 

The average person (and the average hotel receptionist) would be surprised that testing happens outside of competition, and outside of 9 to 5.

[Garfield2010]

During the 90's, the use of EPO was undetectable, but there was knowledge of it use by the authorities, media, and some public.

 

If your logic is to hold, then we should know what the new undetectable drug is. Any idea what it is?

You do not make sense.  There was no test for EPO back then.

[Garfield2010]

How do you know it's a hotel where cyclists stay all the time?  The info I have is "exclusive hotel."  Surprisingly only a few cyclists make lots of money.  I don't have the hotel name, though.

 

Even if it's a hotel that cyclists stay at all the time, what do you think is going to happen when a tester shows up at reception early in the morning?  Most hotels will think of the guest first, unless it's police.  Most hotels do not give out room information.  This is exacerbated by testers wanting to stay incognito as long as possible.

 

The average person (and the average hotel receptionist) would be surprised that testing happens outside of competition, and outside of 9 to 5.

 

Well I am yet to see a hotel that doesn't even bother to call the room and ask for the guest if he is expecting visitors.  it would be very irresponsible for him to tell reception to turn away all visitors - except if he had something to hide.

 

Or that is what my common sense tells me.

[Barend de Arend]

Lets talk about this.  He was upstairs in the hotel and the doping control arrived.  The reception then apparently did not call him as per policy (or that's what he says).

 

Now.... what kind of hotel does not call your room if someone is looking for you at reception?  Did he perhaps ask not to be disturbed or did he perhaps choose not to answer the call if it was in fact being made?

 

When you take your wife to an exclusive hotel, do you not put up the "Do Not Disturb" sign until breakfast?

 

Do the doping control people not have his cell number and did they try and call him and if they did why did he not answer?

 

From experience, they do not.  On purpose.

[GaryvdM]

I listened to a debate between Jaques Roussouw and Ross Tucker when the LA thing broke and the point that Roussouw made was that the ban of some PED's is arbitrary and we should not distinguish between some acceptable training techniques, PED's etc. and those we arbitrarily banned, since there is no rational reason for the distinction (all the legal methods and drugs still achive what the PED's aim at, just less effectively or differently or equally so you gain no edge).

 

The line in the sand for a drug/procedure is weather it is potentially harmful if abused.

 

Once the line in the sand is draw by the authorities (WADA), then crossing that line is a moral issue,  1: because you have to lie about it, and 2. because then you are forcing others to either dope (and potentially harm themselves) or quit.

 

If they were to allow any substance/procedure to be used, there would be masses of aspirant athletes without the financial mean to guidance from doctors, servery harming themselves or dying (like happened when they started using epo.)

[Patchelicious]

Lets talk about this. He was upstairs in the hotel and the doping control arrived. The reception then apparently did not call him as per policy (or that's what he says).

 

Now.... what kind of hotel does not call your room if someone is looking for you at reception? Did he perhaps ask not to be disturbed or did he perhaps choose not to answer the call if it was in fact being made?

 

Do the doping control people not have his cell number and did they try and call him and if they did why did he not answer?

 

I am not saying everyone who misses a test is guilty but what I am saying is that the circumstances and details in this specific instance does not make sense to me. If he was not there then it would have made more sense.

 

You position yourselves very conveniently. You defend Sky vigorously on the same basis as everyone did with Lance in the days of old with the option to walk away if they get caught. You are obviously pro-sky although you wont admit it. You are on any anti-sky comment like a rash on this hub. Don't tell me you are neutral because you are not.

 

It is easy because thus far Sky is clean and no one can argue with your facts. The fact that they have not tested positive and the fact that they have not been caught. Unfortunately in this sport facts are not necessary the way to go. Why do you think they have to make rules like the missing of a doping test. Seriously what is the difference between missing one test and three?

 

You have to miss one test before you can miss numbers two and three.

 

Any neutral person with common sense will have doubts considering the history of the sport and the trends all things considered.

We were not at the hotel, so all our speculation will have to remain speculation. I'll google the links laters, but what does it matter you have a made up mind.

 

I am not pro Sky, I have said many times, I am against nonsensical arguments. Are you saying that I am blatantly lying? I am over Sky comments like a rash? Wow that's polite.

 

Has it occurred to you that there are only Sky doping threads currently active? If someone was on a witch hunt for Lotto/MTN/BMC or anybody else and made accusations against them that didn't make sense, I would question the merits of that too. The mere fact that there isn't just supports my argument about a witch hunt. Do you not think of anything with a logical approach? If there are threads like that that I havent seen, please point me in that direction.

 

Just because my comments about BS arguments happen to be on Sky threads, does not automatically make me a Sky fanboy. But you seem to persecute everybody with the guilty by association angle.

 

Carry on - when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

[GaryvdM]

You do not make sense.  There was no test for EPO back then.

 

Read what I said. Even though there was no test, the authorities, the media, and some of the public knew that it was being used.

 

Why do you think the UCI introduced the 50% hematocrit test.  Because they knew that EPO was being used, and they needed a stop gag until a EPO test was developed.

[Garfield2010]

If a visitor for your guest arrives at the hotel with the required paper work proving they are there for a purpose I still find it very hard to buy the story.

 

Disturb sign or not reception should have / could have (perhaps did) phone him and inform him of the presence of visitors.  It is common sense.

 

Surely the doping controllers have the necessary ID's and approvals as well as proof of the athletes informing them of his own whereabouts?

 

How can this not be suspicious.  Can you guys not see reason in this?

[raptor-22]

No because I stay in hotels  for at least 2 months of the year and very often people cannot find me. I must be doing drugs somewhere or,....

 

1)  I'm in the gym without my phone

2) I've gone for a walk without my phone

3) I'm in the shower

4) I've fallen asleep in the bath

5) I'm in the restaurant having dinner and can't be bothered to answer "Unknown Number"

6) I've fallen asleep on the bed, room phone volume turned down, cell phone off.

 

and probably  100 other reasons why I don't have my phone, am not in my room or don't want to be bothered..

 

but I can see failure to comply with unknown expectations could lead to me being a dope.....

 

but doper is a bridge too far

 

 

 

see the madness in your argument yet?

[Garfield2010]

No because I stay in hotels  for at least 2 months of the year and very often people cannot find me. I must be doing drugs somewhere or,....

 

1)  I'm in the gym without my phone

2) I've gone for a walk without my phone

3) I'm in the shower

4) I've fallen asleep in the bath

5) I'm in the restaurant having dinner and can't be bothered to answer "Unknown Number"

6) I've fallen asleep on the bed, room phone volume turned down, cell phone off.

 

and probably  100 other reasons why I don't have my phone, am not in my room or don't want to be bothered..

 

but I can see failure to comply with unknown expectations could lead to me being a dope.....

 

but doper is a bridge too far

 

 

 

see the madness in your argument yet?

None of the above applies in this case.

 

He said the hotel staff did not call him.  I find this very unlikely that doping control with ID's and paper work pitch up and they don't even bother to call him.

 

I find it very hard to believe.  So your points are all invalid Mr global traveller...

 

Perhaps Mr Froome should have asked the hotel to make a statement - would be more credible.  Or name the hotel so people can enquire on their protocol.

 

The athlete must at all times have an open channel for communication during that time.

[Garfield2010]

Found this on the net hahaha!!

 

Scene at the front desk:

"Good morning gentlemen, how may I assist you?
- We're here to dope test Dawg.
- We don't have any Mr. Dawg registered as a guest. It must be a mistake.
- I mean Froome, Chris Froome, a.k.a. Dawg, Froomey, Skeletor. We're here to bust the SOB.
- Sorry Sir, but our policy is to respect the privacy of our guests. May I take a message?
- Look Front Desk uptight guy: we've come a long way, already missed Piti and Nibbles, almost got kidnapped in Colombia, we won't leave empty handed. All we need to do is perform a quick test and bust the a$$hole.
- Again, I apologize, but it is against our policy.
- Can you get us something at least? Did he send his clothes to the cleaner? Common man, get me the bag. I'll give you 20 bucks."

And then, imagine the casual scene at the hotel restaurant, the Froomes having breakfast:

" Would you like another glass of our fresh squeezed orange juice from Ferrara Mr. Froome?
- Sure Nigel, thank you. And please congratulate the chef: the pan y agua continental is absolutely fantastic.
- Oh, I almost forgot. Earlier this morning, two gentlemen came to perform an out of competition test. Of course, we didn't let them disturb you.
- Great. Here's a hundred pounds Nigel, to split with the Front Desk agent."

[Garfield2010]

 

4) I've fallen asleep in the bath

 

You shouldn't sleep in the bath.  Its more dangerous to your health than drugs you know

[Patchelicious]

None of the above applies in this case.

 

He said the hotel staff did not call him. I find this very unlikely that doping control with ID's and paper work pitch up and they don't even bother to call him.

 

I find it very hard to believe. So your points are all invalid Mr global traveller...

 

Perhaps Mr Froome should have asked the hotel to make a statement - would be more credible. Or name the hotel so people can enquire on their protocol.

 

The athlete must at all times have an open channel for communication during that time.

You cannot simply discount something because it doesn't support what you believe.

 

Mr Global traveller?? Condescending much? You really need to learn to not get personal everytime somebody disagrees with you.

[Garfield2010]

You cannot simply discount something because it doesn't support what you believe.

 

Mr Global traveller?? Condescending much? You really need to learn to not get personal everytime somebody disagrees with you.

 

It is impossible to argue with you guys..................    I have better things to do.  Let me go back underneath my bridge and be bitter and unhappy...................