Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

16 Apr 2018 07:42

Parker wrote:There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.



of course they have, clinic says so
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,418
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 08:03

rick james wrote:
Parker wrote:There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.



of course they have, clinic says so


If you assume an hourly rate of, say, 500 euros an hour and an 8 hour working day thats 1750 man days in 6 months. If we assume 120 working days thats a team of about 14 working full time on it. That does seem pretty high but there could be sizeable disbursements for testing/research etc. Either way, it doesn't take too long to rack up huge legal fees when the stakes are pretty high and I've no doubt they've spent a lot!
simoni
Member
 
Posts: 434
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

16 Apr 2018 08:29

So, in effect,
the Giro organisers are sponsoring his defence.
:confused:
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,745
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 08:36

rick james wrote:
Parker wrote:There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.



of course they have, clinic says so

No, tuttobiciweb says so.
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 30,559
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 08:42

LaFlorecita wrote:
rick james wrote:
Parker wrote:There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.



of course they have, clinic says so

No, tuttobiciweb says so.

Tssk, bad woman, don't confuse Dick, he's easily led.
User avatar ferryman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,169
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 23:43
Location: LostinFife

16 Apr 2018 09:01

Regardless of the total cost, it should not be surprising to anyone that Sky would pay towards his legal fees, especially once they went down road of not suspending him - it showed they were backing him completely. They still need that "never tested +ve" claim. It was only Walsh suggesting otherwise (which itself should be an indication that the opposite is true).

His defence fund isn't going to be just legal fees. They need to pay previously-respected experts from the scientific community to suspend logic and defend the indefensible - that can't be cheap. Who knows what other money they are paying out in order to try to keep the show on the road. PR companies aren't cheap and then there's Uncle Brian's retirement gift to consider
User avatar Eyeballs Out
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,520
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:17
Location: Thames Valley

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 09:02

LaFlorecita wrote:
rick james wrote:
Parker wrote:There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.



of course they have, clinic says so

No, tuttobiciweb says so.
Isn't tuttobiciweb saying La Stampa is saying?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,789
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 09:22

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
hazaran wrote:How would Team Sky come up with 7 million euros? That's a good chunk of their yearly budget. Not to mention more than a years worth of earnings for Froome, which would already put him well beyond the "opportunity cost" of defending this. No. 7 million is what Armstrong is paying for his multi-year, federal trial with a billion witnesses. Froomes case hasn't even seen a real court yet, he is well under even half a million.
Was just thinking the same...7 million euros in little more than 5 months is hard to believe
I don't get it, either. Because :
- Most people had thought Brailsford was making Froome pay his own legal fees, and Sky would not cover it. Did they reconcile this?
- Defending Froome against getting banned for two years, at the cost of two years salary, would mean someone thinks Froome is 'worth' twice as much in the overall picture
- Risk of doubling-down on a losing gamble, also seemed in the interviews like Brailsford expects Froome to get some form of suspension.
"Caso salbutamolo (Froome): il costo delle consulenze già a 7 milioni di euro". Cifra enorme, che fa riflettere. A che punto siamo?.....Si sa che Sky e Froome, cui tocca l'onere della prova, alla fine dovranno rimborsare l'Uci di quello che ha speso. È la pipì più costosa nella storia del ciclismo (e della pipì).
"The Salbutamol Case (Froome): the cost of legal consultancy is already at 7 million euros. An enormous figure, which makes us wonder, what point are we at? It is known that Sky and Froome, which hold the burden of proof, will eventually have to repay the UCI for what it has spent. This is the most expensive pee in the history of cycling (and in the history of peeing)."

It's also not clear to me what part of the UCI's costs Froome will have to pay, it seemed like most of the Anti-Doping Tribunal defendants were getting billed for laboratory and court costs of about 10,000 - 20,000 Swiss francs, and some had to pay a fine of 70% of one year's income for cycling. The defendants didn't have to pay for the UCI's lawyers, as far as I know


7 million on legal fees in 6 months? Not plausible IMO. Even with Morgan and his juniors putting the hours in, and a team of experts turning over every rock, the Giro fee of 1.4 million is a more realistic estimate for that timescale

As for who's paying the Dawg's fees, Walsh wrote in the ST when the AAF story broke that Brailsfraud was making Froome pay his own way because the Dawg didn't have his back during the Wiggo's jiffybag saga. And that would be consistent with JTL being hung out to dry and made to pay his own legal fees clearly it's something that's written into the rider's contracts

However, could something have happened to make Brailsfraud change his mind and agree the team should pay the Dawg's fees? Well I guess Froome could have made him offer he couldn't refuse. Brailsfraud likes to hang tough until someone with enough leverage blackmails him then he caves. Whatever, Walsh has subsequently said that Brailsfraud and the Dawg are currently closer than they've ever been so maybe some kind of compromise has been reached with the team paying part of the fees. After all, Brailsfraud must know that if the Dawg goes down the team is kapput

Stepping back from the nitty gritty, a case like this with huge legal fees on both sides is really a big problem for the UCI which is not exactly rolling in cash. So, just like Morgan dragging the case out puts pressure on the UCI to cave or settle on unfavourable terms, Morgan and his team turning over every rock has the same effect. After all, the UCI's huge legal fees fighting Pelizotti's bio-passport appeal at CAS were a big reason why the UCI basically gave up on prosecuting bio-passport cases instead favouring the much cheaper chill your boots letter approach

And chances are the fees on both sides are currently only half of what they will be by the time the inevitable appeal to CAS has played out. I bet Mike Morgan goes somewhere nice on holiday this year. Pina coladas all round!
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 09:37

simoni wrote:
rick james wrote:
Parker wrote:There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.



of course they have, clinic says so


If you assume an hourly rate of, say, 500 euros an hour and an 8 hour working day thats 1750 man days in 6 months. If we assume 120 working days thats a team of about 14 working full time on it. That does seem pretty high but there could be sizeable disbursements for testing/research etc. Either way, it doesn't take too long to rack up huge legal fees when the stakes are pretty high and I've no doubt they've spent a lot!


Maybe GSK lawyers have thrown in some pro bono work? :surprised:
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 695
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 12:30

Wiggo's Package wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
hazaran wrote:How would Team Sky come up with 7 million euros? That's a good chunk of their yearly budget. Not to mention more than a years worth of earnings for Froome, which would already put him well beyond the "opportunity cost" of defending this. No. 7 million is what Armstrong is paying for his multi-year, federal trial with a billion witnesses. Froomes case hasn't even seen a real court yet, he is well under even half a million.
Was just thinking the same...7 million euros in little more than 5 months is hard to believe
I don't get it, either. Because :
- Most people had thought Brailsford was making Froome pay his own legal fees, and Sky would not cover it. Did they reconcile this?
- Defending Froome against getting banned for two years, at the cost of two years salary, would mean someone thinks Froome is 'worth' twice as much in the overall picture
- Risk of doubling-down on a losing gamble, also seemed in the interviews like Brailsford expects Froome to get some form of suspension.
"Caso salbutamolo (Froome): il costo delle consulenze già a 7 milioni di euro". Cifra enorme, che fa riflettere. A che punto siamo?.....Si sa che Sky e Froome, cui tocca l'onere della prova, alla fine dovranno rimborsare l'Uci di quello che ha speso. È la pipì più costosa nella storia del ciclismo (e della pipì).
"The Salbutamol Case (Froome): the cost of legal consultancy is already at 7 million euros. An enormous figure, which makes us wonder, what point are we at? It is known that Sky and Froome, which hold the burden of proof, will eventually have to repay the UCI for what it has spent. This is the most expensive pee in the history of cycling (and in the history of peeing)."

It's also not clear to me what part of the UCI's costs Froome will have to pay, it seemed like most of the Anti-Doping Tribunal defendants were getting billed for laboratory and court costs of about 10,000 - 20,000 Swiss francs, and some had to pay a fine of 70% of one year's income for cycling. The defendants didn't have to pay for the UCI's lawyers, as far as I know


7 million on legal fees in 6 months? Not plausible IMO. Even with Morgan and his juniors putting the hours in, and a team of experts turning over every rock, the Giro fee of 1.4 million is a more realistic estimate for that timescale

As for who's paying the Dawg's fees, Walsh wrote in the ST when the AAF story broke that Brailsfraud was making Froome pay his own way because the Dawg didn't have his back during the Wiggo's jiffybag saga. And that would be consistent with JTL being hung out to dry and made to pay his own legal fees clearly it's something that's written into the rider's contracts

However, could something have happened to make Brailsfraud change his mind and agree the team should pay the Dawg's fees? Well I guess Froome could have made him offer he couldn't refuse. Brailsfraud likes to hang tough until someone with enough leverage blackmails him then he caves. Whatever, Walsh has subsequently said that Brailsfraud and the Dawg are currently closer than they've ever been so maybe some kind of compromise has been reached with the team paying part of the fees. After all, Brailsfraud must know that if the Dawg goes down the team is kapput

Stepping back from the nitty gritty, a case like this with huge legal fees on both sides is really a big problem for the UCI which is not exactly rolling in cash. So, just like Morgan dragging the case out puts pressure on the UCI to cave or settle on unfavourable terms, Morgan and his team turning over every rock has the same effect. After all, the UCI's huge legal fees fighting Pelizotti's bio-passport appeal at CAS were a big reason why the UCI basically gave up on prosecuting bio-passport cases instead favouring the much cheaper chill your boots letter approach

And chances are the fees on both sides are currently only half of what they will be by the time the inevitable appeal to CAS has played out. I bet Mike Morgan goes somewhere nice on holiday this year. Pina coladas all round!



Where did Walsh say Froome and Brailsford are closer than ever ? Got a link ?
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,414
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 14:00

bigcog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
hazaran wrote:How would Team Sky come up with 7 million euros? That's a good chunk of their yearly budget. Not to mention more than a years worth of earnings for Froome, which would already put him well beyond the "opportunity cost" of defending this. No. 7 million is what Armstrong is paying for his multi-year, federal trial with a billion witnesses. Froomes case hasn't even seen a real court yet, he is well under even half a million.
Was just thinking the same...7 million euros in little more than 5 months is hard to believe
I don't get it, either. Because :
- Most people had thought Brailsford was making Froome pay his own legal fees, and Sky would not cover it. Did they reconcile this?
- Defending Froome against getting banned for two years, at the cost of two years salary, would mean someone thinks Froome is 'worth' twice as much in the overall picture
- Risk of doubling-down on a losing gamble, also seemed in the interviews like Brailsford expects Froome to get some form of suspension.
"Caso salbutamolo (Froome): il costo delle consulenze già a 7 milioni di euro". Cifra enorme, che fa riflettere. A che punto siamo?.....Si sa che Sky e Froome, cui tocca l'onere della prova, alla fine dovranno rimborsare l'Uci di quello che ha speso. È la pipì più costosa nella storia del ciclismo (e della pipì).
"The Salbutamol Case (Froome): the cost of legal consultancy is already at 7 million euros. An enormous figure, which makes us wonder, what point are we at? It is known that Sky and Froome, which hold the burden of proof, will eventually have to repay the UCI for what it has spent. This is the most expensive pee in the history of cycling (and in the history of peeing)."

It's also not clear to me what part of the UCI's costs Froome will have to pay, it seemed like most of the Anti-Doping Tribunal defendants were getting billed for laboratory and court costs of about 10,000 - 20,000 Swiss francs, and some had to pay a fine of 70% of one year's income for cycling. The defendants didn't have to pay for the UCI's lawyers, as far as I know


7 million on legal fees in 6 months? Not plausible IMO. Even with Morgan and his juniors putting the hours in, and a team of experts turning over every rock, the Giro fee of 1.4 million is a more realistic estimate for that timescale

As for who's paying the Dawg's fees, Walsh wrote in the ST when the AAF story broke that Brailsfraud was making Froome pay his own way because the Dawg didn't have his back during the Wiggo's jiffybag saga. And that would be consistent with JTL being hung out to dry and made to pay his own legal fees clearly it's something that's written into the rider's contracts

However, could something have happened to make Brailsfraud change his mind and agree the team should pay the Dawg's fees? Well I guess Froome could have made him offer he couldn't refuse. Brailsfraud likes to hang tough until someone with enough leverage blackmails him then he caves. Whatever, Walsh has subsequently said that Brailsfraud and the Dawg are currently closer than they've ever been so maybe some kind of compromise has been reached with the team paying part of the fees. After all, Brailsfraud must know that if the Dawg goes down the team is kapput

Stepping back from the nitty gritty, a case like this with huge legal fees on both sides is really a big problem for the UCI which is not exactly rolling in cash. So, just like Morgan dragging the case out puts pressure on the UCI to cave or settle on unfavourable terms, Morgan and his team turning over every rock has the same effect. After all, the UCI's huge legal fees fighting Pelizotti's bio-passport appeal at CAS were a big reason why the UCI basically gave up on prosecuting bio-passport cases instead favouring the much cheaper chill your boots letter approach

And chances are the fees on both sides are currently only half of what they will be by the time the inevitable appeal to CAS has played out. I bet Mike Morgan goes somewhere nice on holiday this year. Pina coladas all round!



Where did Walsh say Froome and Brailsford are closer than ever ? Got a link ?


Sunday Times. Online behind a digital paywall. I'm old skool and go to the newsagents of a Sunday for the analogue version
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 14:07

Wiggo's Package wrote:
Sunday Times. Online behind a digital paywall. I'm old skool and go to the newsagents of a Sunday for the analogue version

One of the last broadsheets unfortunately.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,409
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

16 Apr 2018 17:25

Wiggo's Package wrote:
Sunday Times. Online behind a digital paywall. I'm old skool and go to the newsagents of a Sunday for the analogue version


Thanks
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,414
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

17 Apr 2018 10:04

Come to think about Froomes missing morale, in terms of racing during his investigation, it's now even more clear IMO, that he believe what he is doing is totally alright.

If you had a bit of morale and some respect for the fans, and cycling in general, you would probably not act this way.

No class at all.
User avatar danielovichdk2
Junior Member
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 18 Mar 2015 07:28

Re:

17 Apr 2018 10:12

danielovichdk2 wrote:Come to think about Froomes missing morale, in terms of racing during his investigation, it's now even more clear IMO, that he believe what he is doing is totally alright.

If you had a bit of morale and some respect for the fans, and cycling in general, you would probably not act this way.

No class at all.
Looking at the way he raced up that hill yesterday, I'd say there's nowt wrong with his morale, he seems as high-spirited as he always does. More so, in fact, given he was climbing so fast despite his wheels having come off...still, maybe today he'll bottom out.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,789
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

17 Apr 2018 10:29

Since Froome's still on for the double, he has to plan for 2 peaks or 1 long one this year.
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,852
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

17 Apr 2018 13:18

Koronin wrote:7 million? I could retire on that.


Let's see...30yrs x 1 jar nutella/day x 3 serves vege juice/day x 3 ventilon inhalers/hr x Jiffy bag courier costs x marginal gains... yeah, it might just cover it.
Last edited by Froomster on 17 Apr 2018 13:26, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar Froomster
Junior Member
 
Posts: 110
Joined: 18 Jul 2013 13:23

Re:

17 Apr 2018 13:23

Robert5091 wrote:Since Froome's still on for the double, he has to plan for 2 peaks or 1 long one this year.

and what makes you think the clinic will know the answer to that?
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,418
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2018 13:58

fmk_RoI wrote:
danielovichdk2 wrote:Come to think about Froomes missing morale, in terms of racing during his investigation, it's now even more clear IMO, that he believe what he is doing is totally alright.

If you had a bit of morale and some respect for the fans, and cycling in general, you would probably not act this way.

No class at all.
Looking at the way he raced up that hill yesterday, I'd say there's nowt wrong with his morale, he seems as high-spirited as he always does. More so, in fact, given he was climbing so fast despite his wheels having come off...still, maybe today he'll bottom out.


Maybe something ... I dunno ... a little 'Brechtian" ... maybe. That might lull the haters into a bit of a breather? Ya reckon?
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 695
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

17 Apr 2018 14:53

rick james wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:Since Froome's still on for the double, he has to plan for 2 peaks or 1 long one this year.

and what makes you think the clinic will know the answer to that?


i know everything.....slow steady build up suggests will peak just before giro to sustain
through tour

but truth is....'ding..dong...the wicked wizard...has sung his last song....'

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,121
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Back to top