Log in:  

Register

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: Re:

21 Jan 2018 11:00

CTQ wrote:
ooo wrote:Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling


maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.


That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

21 Jan 2018 14:52

Wiggo's Package wrote:
CTQ wrote:
ooo wrote:Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling


maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.


That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '


Another proletarian poison dart in the game of politics of envy.
User avatar Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 562
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

21 Jan 2018 15:17

Wiggo's Package wrote:
CTQ wrote:
ooo wrote:Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling


maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.


That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '


I’m loving the French vs UK showdown with Brailsford. Cycling has got it balls back after a neutered four years with limp Cookson.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

21 Jan 2018 18:22

Drug cheat Impey winning under the French chiefs tenure...changed days indeed
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,643
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re: Re:

21 Jan 2018 18:44

thehog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
CTQ wrote:
ooo wrote:Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling


maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.


That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '


I’m loving the French vs UK showdown with Brailsford. Cycling has got it balls back after a neutered four years with limp Cookson.


Indeed. Long overdue

And even if the Dawg skates will he go back to smashing GTs? Without Uncle Brian covering his back he's gonna have to scale things back

What odds the Dawg banks £1.5m for starting the 2018 Giro then gets DQ'd for holding on to a moto? Just like the good old days :lol:

And that £1.5m should just about cover his legal bills. Perfect :D
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

21 Jan 2018 18:48

Farewell gesture: zigzagging down from San Luca into the sunset?
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 695
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

22 Jan 2018 12:14

Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

22 Jan 2018 12:31

But in 1930 Alfredo Binda hadn't the PED tech of CF.
He enjoyed the support of the Italian Fascist Party,
and by extension the press ...

Sounds familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Binda
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,197
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:15

fmk_RoI wrote:Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.


No. UCI rules allow the race organizer (i.e. ASO for TDF) to reject rider to compete in case they feel it would severely harm the image and reputation of the race. And Sky/Froome needs to adhere to UCI ruling. See the last couple of page of Froome's clinic thread.

I think Lappartient just (wisely) puts pressure on Froome/Sky to speed up the resolution of the case to a direction or another. If the matter is still up in the air coming May, it will be very un-pleasent to everyone, including Froome.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:19

fmk_RoI wrote:Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.


Froome broke the anti-doping law. His B sample confirmed it. He has to support the consequences. It's up to him to demonstrate he is innocent, as it stands right now he's guilty. Every team has an internal conduct and ethics code. The most zero-tolerance ultra-marginal gains team in the world has to have one. Every rider on that team has to sign it. I can't imagine there isn't an article there which specifically requests for suspension of a rider who broke the anti-doping law. It's that simple really.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,646
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:20

TourOfSardinia wrote:But in 1930 Alfredo Binda hadn't the PED tech of CF.
He enjoyed the support of the Italian Fascist Party,
and by extension the press ...

Sounds familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Binda
Well that's one way of saying you haven't got a clue about what I was saying...thank you.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:21

bambino wrote:UCI rules allow the race organizer (i.e. ASO for TDF) to reject rider to compete in case they feel it would severely harm the image and reputation of the race.
As they say in Wikiland, citation needed. Chapter and verse, please.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:23

Rollthedice wrote:Froome broke the anti-doping law. His B sample confirmed it.
Again, citation needed. What rule?

(This is what I love about many people round here: they insist riders should follow the rules, but they themselves haven't got a clue about the rules and just make them up as they go along.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:30

fmk_RoI wrote:
bambino wrote:UCI rules allow the race organizer (i.e. ASO for TDF) to reject rider to compete in case they feel it would severely harm the image and reputation of the race.
As they say in Wikiland, citation needed. Chapter and verse, please.


UCI regulation 2.2.010bis :
“Special provisions applicable to road events:
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.”

and the TDF rule that refer to 2.2.010 :

"ARTICLE 28
RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 : A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de – l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres, dont la présence serait de nature à porter atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou de l’épreuve."

Which is roughly:

"A.S.O. holds essential the preservation of its image, its reputation and those of the event. In accordance with article 2.2.010bis paragraphs 7 and 8 of the UCI Cycling Rules, ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse participation in - or to exclude from - the event, a team or the one of its members, whose presence would be likely to harm the image or reputation of ASO or the event."
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

22 Jan 2018 13:48

The whole of 2.2.010 bis needs reading, especially the first dozen words:
Exclusion from races
2.2.010
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.

The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.

The licence holder or the team must be heard.

If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from the president of the commissaires panel.

Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.

Special provisions applicable to road events:

The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.

If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.

However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cedex 13).

(text introduced on 1.01.03; modified on 1.01.05; 25.09.07; 1.01.09).
CAS would take no time at all in deciding this case in Froome's favour.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

22 Jan 2018 13:54

fmk_RoI wrote:Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.

Well, it shouldn't really be that difficult for the first round to be finished before the Giro starts, if that's what all parties want, for a positive like this from September. If Froome had been suspended, do you think the case would have proceeded with the same pace as of now?

BTW, the whole UCI rule, see page 11: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20180101-E_English.PDF

Exclusion from races
2.2.010 bis
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.

The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.

The licence holder or the team must be heard.

If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from the president of the commissaires panel.

Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.

Special provisions applicable to road events:
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.

If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period. However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cedex 13).
(text introduced on 1.01.03; modified on 1.01.05; 25.09.07; 1.01.09).

Edit: sorry for being redundant, I only saw the post above after mine...
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,916
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

22 Jan 2018 15:17

fmk_RoI wrote:The whole of 2.2.010 bis needs reading, especially the first dozen words:
Exclusion from races
2.2.010
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.

The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.

The licence holder or the team must be heard.

If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from the president of the commissaires panel.

Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.

Special provisions applicable to road events:

The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.

If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.

However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cedex 13).

(text introduced on 1.01.03; modified on 1.01.05; 25.09.07; 1.01.09).
CAS would take no time at all in deciding this case in Froome's favour.


What exactly in those few dozens of words makes you believe CAS would rule Froome under doping investigation would not be harmful for the image of cycling and the race?

Explanation needed, it is always amusing seeing people throwing their opinions here.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

22 Jan 2018 15:22

Exclusion from races
2.2.010
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.

@fmk_RoI They didn't have to go through CAS to eject Michael Rasmussen
- how is Froome different?
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,197
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

22 Jan 2018 15:25

ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,916
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

22 Jan 2018 15:27

Netserk wrote:ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.

very good example
typical common sense approach from the low countries.
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,197
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: simoni and 16 guests

Back to top