Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 536 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Is Froome over the hill?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 42 34.4%
  • No, the GC finished 40 minutes ago but Froomie is still climbing it

    Votes: 65 53.3%
  • No he is totally winning the Vuelta

    Votes: 28 23.0%

  • Total voters
    122
So ASO is trying to keep CF from racing. I completely get their point. But. at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek! :eek:

Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread.
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
So ASO is trying to keep CF from racing. I completely get their point. But. at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek! :eek:

Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread.

It's a shambles of course. Every time it's mentioned by journalists you can just imagine people rolling their eyes.............the off season would be the perfect time to make major changes to the rules.
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
So ASO is trying to keep CF from racing. I completely get their point. But. at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek! :eek:

Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread.


And we just got another case (the Roson case) that proves they can't do anything in a timely manner. That case dates back to Jan 2017 and they just provisionally suspended him. They still haven't even given him a real decision yet.
 
Absolute farcical situation for the sport. Something questionable happens almost ten months ago, and we don't know one week before the biggest race on the calendar as to whether the rider in question is allowed to race or not. Try to explain that to a follower of any other sport. You can't.

Either way, make a decision!
 
This is the way the system is, especially if you want to strongly defend yourself with the best legal representation Think some live in a bubble in this forum - All these legal representatives whether Froome's side or the other side have busy lives and CAN'T be expected to drop their other work to work full time on Froome's case - My understanding is the Samuel Sanchez case pre-Vuelta and the case pre TDF have yet to be resolved and these were positive drug tests - One thing that interests me is whether RCS has a disrepute clause in their rules like the ASO ?
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
They mention WADA but they are not involved at this point in the procedure yet?

Edit: never mind, it's just been confirmed by the UCI. What a farce.

I guess it makes sense for the UCI to get WADA's input on such a high profile decision, since they have more expertise, and also as far as I know a right to appeal an acquittal if they disagree.
 
Re:

silvergrenade said:
A month ago today. What a day that was! :)
DgisZAEVMAIiCEM.jpg

We will watch it again at Alpe d'Huez! :razz: