collapse


Claudio Cappuccino

  • National Champion
  • Country: nl
  • Posts: 924
  • Liked: 789
  • Venga! Venga! Venga!
Re: Chris Froome
« Reply #2730 on: June 20, 2018, 18:29 »
Yes he is a nutter.
  • ReplyReply

  • AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6632
    • Liked: 4080
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013

    Flo

    • #1 Alberto Contador fangirl
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 8871
    • Liked: 4563
    • Awards: 2019 Worlds prediction champ2019 Giro prediction champNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2018KeithJamesMC award 2016Velorooms Trivia Monday Quiz Champion 2015/2016Dish of the Year 2015Member of the year 2015Fan of the year 20152015 Giro Quiz League - 3rd placeNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Fan of the year 2013Best fanboy/girl 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2732 on: July 02, 2018, 10:31 »
    Bloody hell

    Money and power

    They'll forever get away with it now

    Froome for the GT triple this year
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith
    RIP krebs

    Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2716
    • Liked: 3249
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2733 on: July 02, 2018, 10:46 »
    Well, there you go.
    Of course the decision will change very little for very many.

    I can't wait for some actual racing to start, along with Avondetappe and Vive le Velo.
  • ReplyReply
  • "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.

    blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3148
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2734 on: July 02, 2018, 11:19 »
    ....."wonderful" news, my July schedule has just opened up....

    ......wondering if Petacchi is going to sue.....frankly he should, as should Ulissi.....

    ....and to add insult to injury....

    "The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar."

    Cheers
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3148
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2735 on: July 02, 2018, 12:03 »
    ....so hard to believe that an organization founded by Dick Pound would backstop such a decision....yup yup real hard to believe....

    Cheers
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2736 on: July 02, 2018, 12:24 »
    Quote
    “Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA, which triggered a requirement for us to provide further information. After a comprehensive review of that information, relevant data and scientific research, the UCI and WADA have concluded that there was, in fact, no AAF and that no rule has been broken.

    “We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

    Dave Brailsford in road.cc
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3148
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2737 on: July 02, 2018, 12:39 »
    ....yeah, WADA essentially confirmed their test for Salbutamol is meaningless.....and in so doing also confirmed, more or less, that  WADA is meaningless ( and in a kinda ironic twist the site spell-check flags the term WADA as meaningless ...).....

    ...maybe they could change the name to something more appropriate like WADEVER....as in WADEVER it takes to keep the money pouring in and the resident bureaucracy well fed, because frankly, I think that is all that really matters....

    Cheers 
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 12:56 by blutto »

    Flo

    • #1 Alberto Contador fangirl
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 8871
    • Liked: 4563
    • Awards: 2019 Worlds prediction champ2019 Giro prediction champNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2018KeithJamesMC award 2016Velorooms Trivia Monday Quiz Champion 2015/2016Dish of the Year 2015Member of the year 2015Fan of the year 20152015 Giro Quiz League - 3rd placeNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Fan of the year 2013Best fanboy/girl 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2738 on: July 02, 2018, 12:49 »
    I wonder if it was the dodgy kidney or the asthmatic dogs article that swayed WADA

    Dangerous precedent - any positive can now be explained away by saying the rules and/or testing is faulty - at least if you're a big name with a lot of money
  • ReplyReply


  • Flo

    • #1 Alberto Contador fangirl
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 8871
    • Liked: 4563
    • Awards: 2019 Worlds prediction champ2019 Giro prediction champNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2018KeithJamesMC award 2016Velorooms Trivia Monday Quiz Champion 2015/2016Dish of the Year 2015Member of the year 2015Fan of the year 20152015 Giro Quiz League - 3rd placeNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Fan of the year 2013Best fanboy/girl 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2740 on: July 02, 2018, 15:23 »
    Reading WADA statement. Sounds like they acknowledge that sometimes the limit is exceeded without exceeding the max dose. But a controlled pharmacokinetic study would have to show that the rider's physiology would make this possible. Yet they then disregard this rule because it wouldn't be possible to completely copy the circumstances around the test?
    This would make sense if this was a regular occurrence, but it doesn't sound that way. So looks like they didn't want to punish him in the slight chance he was innocent so let him off.
    Back to the controlled pharmacokinetic study: what was all the riding in SA this off season for?
    And regarding the rules: they basically clear Froome on the basis that sometimes, a false positive occurs. Isn't this the case for any test? Froome hasn't done anything to show his physiology would cause such a high concentration of salbutamol in his urine, dodgy kidney or not. In fact, the fact that this apparently hasn't happened before to him and his claims that, first, he took more salbutamol because of an asthma attack, and later, that he took three puffs in quick succession before the interview, point in a different direction.
    Seems like his lawyers found a loophole and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 307
    • Liked: 308
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2741 on: July 02, 2018, 17:17 »
    .............................
    Seems like his lawyers found a     ***** ** ******* *******....    (did you guys ever work out who it was that leaked Lizzies silent ban ?)          and when this was put to the lawyers representing the UCI, they made it clear to Lapartient that he had either to accept or resign from office ........... ................................. and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it

    There - fixed that for you.

    So I make that a win for Sir DB and Sky. 
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3148
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2742 on: July 02, 2018, 17:38 »
    ....a post from another site that paints a nice neat picture of the bureaucratic maneuvering that produced the Froome decision.....

    Appears ASO forced that situation with their announcement on Sunday. WADA acted fast and the UCI had no choice but to follow. Then WADA pretended it was the UCIs decision.

    ....odd but the spell check flags Froome, WADA, ASO, and UCI as not corresponding to anything commonly understood as, uhhhh, acceptable....

    Cheers
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2743 on: July 02, 2018, 21:33 »
    I LOVE Ross Tucker's quote (with VN)
    Quote
    And as for the final line in the UCI statement? Asking us to trust the process because it involved experts and then saying we should enjoy the racing?… as if that is going to happen?! Can they be that tone deaf and out of touch?
    from VeloNews
  • ReplyReply
  • . . .He had the bit between his teeth, and he loiked the taste, mate . . .

    pastronef

    • Road Captain
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 1119
    • Liked: 665

    Drummer Boy

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 3225
    • Liked: 3868
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2745 on: July 03, 2018, 13:35 »
    Benson quoting from Landis and Horner. I truly thought this was parody when I first came across it.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-and-horner-wed-let-froome-ride-the-tour-de-france/#disqus_thread

    Chris Horner weighing in on Froome's Vuelta victory.
    Horner...on the Vuelta:D
    Quote
    "I see it pretty simply," 2013 Vuelta winner Horner said. "I don't think he won the Vuelta because he was out of the limits, for whatever reason, but the rules are the rules, and they've got those rules in place. I don't see him as a Vuelta winner, but I do see him as a Giro winner and the rules state that he can start the Tour de France and other races until this who fiasco is sorted out.



    Who needs parody twitter accounts when the likes of CN are giving this to us for free?
    Quote
    "I would take it step further," Landis interjected, "because athletes are held to a strict standard and because there's no flexibility at all. Therefore the race organisers and the authorities have to follow the same standard. The athletes don't get any leeway. So neither should the Tour de France or the UCI. Otherwise what's the incentive for the riders to follow the rules? So let him race. It would be boring without him. He could win five… Let him do it," Landis said, before both he and Horner broke out in uncontrollable laughter.

    This is what we've come to.

     :D :lol :D :lol
  • ReplyReply


  • Drummer Boy

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 3225
    • Liked: 3868
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2747 on: July 03, 2018, 15:26 »
    https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1014039257042882560


    https://www.facebook.com/1481917892086163/posts/2094926427451970/


    Quote
    Asked what impact he thought the case would have, Dr Rabin said: “I may be about to disappoint you, but I do not believe it will have much at all.”

    The problem for WADA, Dr Rabin explained, is that even when you inhale salbutamol 60-70 per cent of it goes into the gastrointestinal tract, as it would if you took it as a pill. This is why WADA’s advice is not to get too close to the dosage limit as doing so would suggest your asthma is out of control and you run the risk of an adverse finding.
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2716
    • Liked: 3249
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2748 on: July 03, 2018, 16:41 »
    https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1014039257042882560

    https://www.facebook.com/1481917892086163/posts/2094926427451970/


    Quote
    Asked what impact he thought the case would have, Dr Rabin said: “I may be about to disappoint you, but I do not believe it will have much at all.”

    The problem for WADA, Dr Rabin explained, is that even when you inhale salbutamol 60-70 per cent of it goes into the gastrointestinal tract, as it would if you took it as a pill. This is why WADA’s advice is not to get too close to the dosage limit as doing so would suggest your asthma is out of control and you run the risk of an adverse finding.



     Have to say that's a pretty selective bit of cut and pasting, which neatly avoids the key conclusions, as laid out by Dr Rabin.

    Quote
    “In this case, we had several specific elements,” said Dr Rabin.
    “First, there was a very significant increase in dosage in the preceding days (Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms). Second, he was being treated for an infection.
    “And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on.
    “Given all of this, we decided an excretion study was impossible and the finding was not inconsistent with therapeutic dosages.”
    Asked why anyone else in Froome’s position will not use the same arguments, Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too.
  • ReplyReply

  • Drummer Boy

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 3225
    • Liked: 3868
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2749 on: July 03, 2018, 20:14 »
    Have to say that's a pretty selective bit of cut and pasting, which neatly avoids the key conclusions, as laid out by Dr Rabin

    It's a short article, and it's all there for anyone to easily read.
    I wasn't trying to push an agenda, but merely highlighting points that seemed particularly unique to this interview.

    The intact intro from Slater accurately conveys the tone of the piece.

    I'm not a fan of Sky or Froome—no secret there. But I'm mostly just interested in following the unfolding narrative of all this.
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2750 on: July 03, 2018, 22:07 »
    . . .


    https://twitter.com/WestemeyerSusan/status/1013714250211188737

     . . .


    The only problem is that Susan has said that before. At least a few times that I am aware of. This makes the 2nd time this year alone.
  • ReplyReply

  • pastronef

    • Road Captain
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 1119
    • Liked: 665
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2751 on: July 03, 2018, 22:20 »
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

    Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2716
    • Liked: 3249
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2752 on: July 04, 2018, 09:08 »
    The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations admits that the rules are flawed and "not fit for purpose".

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f?shareToken=9744f1f83b5e0c75b480e278402b2388

    Quote
    “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

    Worth reading if the Times pay wall doesn't block folks.
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3148
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2753 on: July 04, 2018, 12:01 »
    ....from behind The Times paywall....

    "The Times wrote:

    The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

    Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

    Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

    Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

    “I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

    “From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

    “If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

    Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

    Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment"

    ...hmmmm, looks like Petacchi may well get a very nice payday out of this.....

    ...so the story so far, WADA and the UCI have soiled themselves, and pro-cycling, in epic fashion and for good measure also did a face-plant in the, errr, muck..... and to add to the mess they have created they are likely going have to pay out mightily to what now seem to be some innocent injured parties.....

    ...cool....

    Cheers   
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 04:15 by blutto »

    froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4935
    • Liked: 2050
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2754 on: July 04, 2018, 12:37 »
    Chris Froome: Team Sky's unprecedented release of data reveals how British rider won Giro d'Italia

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

    I found this interesting reading, I dunno if other teams do this but the amount of attention to deal  :-x



  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith

    M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2755 on: July 04, 2018, 13:59 »
    ....from behind The Times paywall....
     . . . 

    Thank you for the clip, Blutto. Appreciated. However, I notice two glaring, and disturbing, things about the Fitch statement.

    ....
    The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

    Ken Fitch  . . .

     were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years  . . .

     . . .
    Given events of the past 20 years, I should have to do no more than highlight IOC to bring attention to how much, or little, faith we can put in any statement from Fitch. I do say that partly with snark - so take it with a modicum of skepticism. After all, there is a high likelihood that someone on the IOC is honest, right?

    The second thing I note is the tone of the article and the quoted bits. It could be the reporter's fault, but some of that wording is very unscientific. I won't go into full discourse - it would be instant TLDR - but I'll point out the quote "a terrible blunder". No scientist worth his reputation would make such a statement. He oversaw, and presumable designed a study. In science-geek-speak, one might say the study was flawed, or that the study indicated further research was necessary, or the study only covered such-and-such a population, and shouldn't be taken to automatically cover a different population (i.e. swimmers vs cyclists). Or something like that. Like I said, it could be a context and communication thing. After all, the journo wants a readable article, one that the readership will want to look at. That doesn't always coincide with a dry and accurate recounting of a conversation. You know, all that "communication difficulties" stuff.

    All in all, though, a useful addition to the conversation. Also notable in the clip provided is the inclusion, near the end, of a dissenting scientific opinion. This is good - shows that the world of science is not entirely in agreement on the whole thing. And that is about what I would expect.

    Ultimately, this is reinforcing my thinking that the rules and protocols will tighten up as a result. And, as a result, WADA, the UCI, and anti-doping are going to come out of this better off. I think the IOC is still in the can, though.
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2756 on: July 04, 2018, 15:49 »
    As an addition to the dialogue, here is more from Dr Rabin (the dissenting opinion in the foregoing). This from Matt Slater via Peter Cossins and Twitter.

    https://www.facebook.com/1481917892086163/posts/2094926427451970/
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 17:52 by M Gee, Reason: correction - wrong name provided - booboo »

    Flo

    • #1 Alberto Contador fangirl
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 8871
    • Liked: 4563
    • Awards: 2019 Worlds prediction champ2019 Giro prediction champNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2018KeithJamesMC award 2016Velorooms Trivia Monday Quiz Champion 2015/2016Dish of the Year 2015Member of the year 2015Fan of the year 20152015 Giro Quiz League - 3rd placeNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Fan of the year 2013Best fanboy/girl 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2757 on: July 04, 2018, 16:56 »



     Have to say that's a pretty selective bit of cut and pasting, which neatly avoids the key conclusions, as laid out by Dr Rabin.

    Quote
    “In this case, we had several specific elements,” said Dr Rabin.
    “First, there was a very significant increase in dosage in the preceding days (Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms). Second, he was being treated for an infection.
    “And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on.
    “Given all of this, we decided an excretion study was impossible and the finding was not inconsistent with therapeutic dosages.”
    Asked why anyone else in Froome’s position will not use the same arguments, Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too.



    "Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms"
    What is the proof for that? Just what Froome's team of lawyers tells us?

    "he was being treated for an infection"
    Ahh, a nice legal dose of corticosteroids as well

    "And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on"
    And this was different from others days how exactly??

    "Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too."
    Well, that's reassuring

    I still can't wrap my head around this. He is absolved simply because replication of the circumstances is improbable. Even though the odds of delivering a sample above the max limit while staying within the allowed dosage are slight. Isn't the onus of proof on the athlete in sports? What happened to guilty until proven innocent? Did Froome and his team try everything in their power to replicate the circumstances as best as they could in a pharmacokinetic study? I think not.

    Just burn the entire book of regulations already, if the rules apparently aren't going to be followed anyway.

    10$ says he has been in this position many times before which is why he was so confident he was going to get off.
  • ReplyReply

  • Echoes

    • Road Captain
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 1498
    • Liked: 1740
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2758 on: July 04, 2018, 23:44 »
    Chris Froome: Team Sky's unprecedented release of data reveals how British rider won Giro d'Italia

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

    I found this interesting reading, I dunno if other teams do this but the amount of attention to deal  :-x


    Nice to see you back Froome19. :)
  • ReplyReply
  • "Paris-Roubaix is the biggest cycling race in the world, bigger than the Tour de France, bigger than any other bike race" (Sir Bradley Wiggins)

    AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6632
    • Liked: 4080
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2759 on: July 05, 2018, 02:01 »
    Good to see you back Froomey


    as to this - certainly no one ... not Froome, nor the UCI, nor WADA comes out of this well.  Perhaps the only happy people ... Ullissi and Petacchi    :D
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top