Search results

But the limit isn't how much is in your system, it's how much you take.

There's a limit on how much he could take. You said that his readings showed he was over that limit. That isn't the case, because the readings don't show how much he'd taken at all, they simply showed what he was pissing out, and Sky have shown that in the case of Salbutamol, that's not a good...

Cool. No they don't. As you say, Sky showed that their method of calculating his dose was flawed. And likewise we'll never know if any of the other cyclists took more than they should have. The fact is, there's no evidence to show that he took too much, so why try and make it sound like he did...

Which means that there's a limit, and you need permission to use it, and that riders are believed to have exceed the limit. That's all. Unless you're being intentionally dense, then you must have miss the fact that he was cleared of wrong-doing, because the test results didn't show he's taken...

Feel free to explain why that's wrong.

But if you actually have asthma, you don't really have a choice do you. And since G doesn't have asthma, taking the meds wouldn't do him any good anyway.

That's a fair comment on cycling in general. What I'm unconvinced about is Sky just winning because they have the biggest budget.

So does having TUE make you one of the bad guys?

Can someone post the budgets for the top few teams over the last 7 ish years? From bits I've read, Sky weren't that far over other teams, and since they're winning, they're presumably getting more from sponsors than their rivals, so you can't blame them for that. And in some years Froome has...

You'd be arrogant if you were that good. Indeed.

Maybe. One bit where I will have changed my tune over the last few years is my feelings on how many other sportsmen are doping - I currently think it's a lot more than I used to think. For example, I used to think Bolt was clean :facepalm:

You've lost me. I'm hoping the current riders are clean. Or at least if they're not, I'm assuming they're not getting away with taking much. Did I say something else before?

Er, regarding what?

Now we can see what the best clean athletes can do, it's all the funnier to look back at the super-human efforts of yesteryear. Completely farcical. Speaking of today's best, there were some great words from Cav re G and team Sky in general.

Was that a flat stage, or did they simply have little motors fitted?

Would Julian win then? Maybe I've unfairly judged him after seeing him lose a few.

Christ that's harsh. Ok I agree on Tom and Froome, but Bardet and Quintana haven't shown tour winning strength for years, and I don't think Nibs or Porte would be beating G on this form either.

Well Tom had a mechanical in I think the first hill stage, and down a minute down on G, so he's not had the best luck (same for Froome with the crash) but following a wheel isn't that easy up the mountains and Tom has commented that G is the strongest rider in this year's tour. I'm not saying...

He just needs to attack Tom so that there's a back-up plan if G has an accident or similar. Can't see him overhauling G though, and although Chris would obviously love to win in the same years as the Giro, I hope he's happy for a man who's given him so much over recent years.

Forget the drug fuelled freaks of yesteryear, attack after attack after attack is not sustainable for clean athletes.