Mudsimus Posted January 19, 2018 Share Duplicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 19, 2018 Share I think you misunderstood me...I think it does matter outside the cycling world.... Yes it would be very bad for Sky not only that the team and race schedule is built around him..but it couldn't have come at a worst time for Sky with the impending Disney takeover of fox which owns most of Sky, it's not like cycling make their sponsors huge amount of money...why would a corporation sponsor a team that have scandals and don't make them money. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkExactly my point. So how does them handling the scandal in different manner to appease us, trump them getting their man off? You keep yelling at them, but I’m not sure what it is you want them to do differently? Maybe we can clarify that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted January 19, 2018 Share Exactly my point. So how does them handling the scandal in different manner to appease us, trump them getting their man off? You keep yelling at them, but I’m not sure what it is you want them to do differently? Maybe we can clarify that?It doesn't.. doesn't help their reputation but that doesn't matter to them. They decided to handle it a certain way and that is their right..I can have an opinion on it and as many in here I can say that to me they handled it very poorly..and I said that from the very start. Getting a rider off seems like a bad choice of words actually..we shouldn't use it..wouldn't saying, proving a riders innocence be better..getting him off a doping charge just sounds like you are willing to do anything to get away with it.[emoji6][emoji6] Anyhow..it is what it is..it just needs to be over with as soon as possible.. there is racing to enjoy... have lekker day [emoji1303] Oh to answer your question.. personally being upfront and transparent even though according to rules didn't have to be would've been better in my opinion..I actually would've given them Kudus for that.. (in other words, get result.. inform public, pull him from all racing until mess is sorted)..this is something I said right at the start. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted January 19, 2018 Share If things turn out bad for Froome and he receives a ban (which I don't think he will) do you guys think Sky will stick to their zero tolerance stance and fire him or will they say well it wasn't really a bad bad thing and keep him? Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosmonooit Posted January 19, 2018 Share dunno - depends on what happens, perhaps there is a plausible and palatable explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 19, 2018 Share It doesn't.. doesn't help their reputation but that doesn't matter to them. They decided to handle it a certain way and that is their right..I can have an opinion on it and as many in here I can say that to me they handled it very poorly..and I said that from the very start. Getting a rider off seems like a bad choice of words actually..we shouldn't use it..wouldn't saying, proving a riders innocence be better..getting him off a doping charge just sounds like you are willing to do anything to get away with it.[emoji6][emoji6] Anyhow..it is what it is..it just needs to be over with as soon as possible.. there is racing to enjoy... have lekker day [emoji1303] Oh to answer your question.. personally being upfront and transparent even though according to rules didn't have to be would've been better in my opinion..I actually would've given them Kudus for that.. (in other words, get result.. inform public, pull him from all racing until mess is sorted)..this is something I said right at the start. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Of course you can have an opinion on it, we all can, there is no issue with that. I am more trying to uncovered what you would have found acceptable. We keep hearing about what they are doing is wrong, but no suggestion of how it should have been handled. Saying that you wanted them to be upfront and transparent? How? What should they have done? If you were in Dave's shoes, how would you have handled it? I am sceptical that another approach would have been deemed "acceptable". I think we have our Captain Hindsight suits on. But thats just my opinion, my opinion can however be changed, please change it. People will defend who they support regardless of what they do. People will attack those they dont support regardless of what they do, and thats fine. But lets not pretend to be impartial. Here is a slightly different example to make a point about bias. Many people say that if Berto came out and admitted that he cheated, they would have been more accepting, BS, they would simply have called him an "admitted doper" instead of a "lying doper". Should SKY have handle this differently, yes, I have said yes a few times. I think they should have held a proper press conference the moment that the information was prematurely leaked. If they did this would they have won over extra fans? Lets not kid ourselves. Edit: Withdraw him from racing, what racing? What races is he currently participating in, he is not racing at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 19, 2018 Share If things turn out bad for Froome and he receives a ban (which I don't think he will) do you guys think Sky will stick to their zero tolerance stance and fire him or will they say well it wasn't really a bad bad thing and keep him? No of course not, the definition of zero tolerance would just be questioned. Their statement would be" He had a legal TUE, so what is there to tolerate?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave303e Posted January 19, 2018 Share I still think TUE is to much grey area, if you are sick enough to require medicine, you are too sick to race untill it is out of your system so you should not race, but then again just a tonsil's 2c and i am in no way medically qualified so take it with a pinch of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted January 19, 2018 Share Should SKY have handle this differently, yes, I have said yes a few times. I think they should have held a proper press conference the moment that the information was prematurely leaked. If they did this would they have won over extra fans? Lets not kid ourselves.I can't speak for others but as I said before I would've given them kudos had they done that. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted January 19, 2018 Share No of course not, the definition of zero tolerance would just be questioned. Their statement would be" He had a legal TUE, so what is there to tolerate?"What TUE there is no TUE..if there was a TUE there wouldn't even be a headline as he wouldn't have broken rules and he would've been allowed to test over the limit.???????? Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 19, 2018 Share What TUE there is no TUE..if there was a TUE there wouldn't even be a headline as he wouldn't have broken rules and he would've been allowed to test over the limit. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkWrong words perhaps, no TUE is required for salbutamol inhalers, so he didn't break rules according to him, he tested over the limit. And now has to prove through a PK test to show why that could happen. You say he broke rules, which rules did he break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted January 19, 2018 Share Wrong words perhaps, no TUE is required for salbutamol inhalers, so he didn't break rules according to him, he tested over the limit. Which rules did he break?Remember we were speaking if it goes bad for him and he receives a ban..if he does then it means he did break rules and it's a doping violation. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 19, 2018 Share Remember we were speaking if it goes bad for him and he receives a ban..if he does then it means he did break rules and it's a doping violation. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkYou are jumping between posts again. You said, "he broke rules", which rules did he break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted January 19, 2018 Share I still think TUE is to much grey area, if you are sick enough to require medicine, you are too sick to race untill it is out of your system so you should not race, but then again just a tonsil's 2c and i am in no way medically qualified so take it with a pinch of salt.But what if it’s a condition like asthma or hayfever or a bum sore.... does that mean you cannot go to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted January 19, 2018 Share But what if it’s a condition like asthma or hayfever or a bum sore.... does that mean you cannot go to work?I sometimes suffer from an eye condition, some mornings I cant see myself going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted January 19, 2018 Share You are jumping between posts again. You said, "he broke rules", which rules did he break?Patch focus and read carefully ...this is what we were discussing. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.