Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if Chris Froome has already won BBC Sports Personality of the Year? I know he lacks any discernable personality, but that has never stopped winners in the past. In terms of what he won the achievement was phenomenal. He could already have the votes in the saddle bag.

BUT how was such a bizarre ruling approved? (To me it is almost unimaginable that asthmatics like Froome and Paula Ratcliffe can even participate in endurance events, never mind be recognised as the best in the world.) But how can you think there won't be trouble with a rule that allows an athlete to take a certain amount of a drug only? Do we really know how quickly traces of that drug will disperse in the human body? Do we really know everyone will get rid of all traces at the same rate? And as bodies do react differently in different conditions do we know that after a day cycling in the mountains the resulting samples will be the same as if the rider had sauntered along mid pack at seas level? If the asthmatic rider has a cold will the drug disperse at the same rate as if he hasn't? And who the fkkkcu is counting the puffs, what if you forget and you've had your eight puffs and you take another two before you realise? Do you have to call a foul on yourself and drop out of the Tour de France even though you're fifteen minutes clear and you're only going to be expected to saunter into Paris with a glass of champagne?

Should we perhaps be drug testing the administrators who invent these rules and the team bosses who collude with them?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)