Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1065 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

HelloDolly said:
2009 Mount Ventoux stage was the procession of the dopers ....Armstrong, both Schlecks, Contador, Wiggins, Kloden ....


And when Tony Martin was a climber and future winner of the Tour
you should maybe tell Tony Martin you're calling him a drug cheat, Facebook him, I'm sure he'd love to hear that
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
HelloDolly said:
2009 Mount Ventoux stage was the procession of the dopers ....Armstrong, both Schlecks, Contador, Wiggins, Kloden ....


And when Tony Martin was a climber and future winner of the Tour
you should maybe tell Tony Martin you're calling him a drug cheat, Facebook him, I'm sure he'd love to hear that
You understand that being a media visible professional entails potential negatives, risks and public judgments, yes?
 
Aug 20, 2017
1,397
0
0
Re:

Robert5091 said:
Worth a read -
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938
Chris Froome could be risking a longer ban as he tries to clear his name in his unfolding Salbutamol case.

That’s according to Rocco Taminelli, a Swiss sports lawyer who represented Diego Ulissi in 2014.

“What he is trying to do is very risky,” Taminelli told VeloNews. “They will try to argue that he did not take more than was allowed. Now he has to prove it, and that is the hard part. If you fail to prove it, you could get two years.”
This.
Stupid tactic, he is not able to face an appropriate ban. He has no balls.
Finally he will get two years ban and cycling will be free of another cheater.
(0,3 % of C2H5OH).
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
HelloDolly said:
2009 Mount Ventoux stage was the procession of the dopers ....Armstrong, both Schlecks, Contador, Wiggins, Kloden ....


And when Tony Martin was a climber and future winner of the Tour
you should maybe tell Tony Martin you're calling him a drug cheat, Facebook him, I'm sure he'd love to hear that

Never called Tony Martin a drug cheat ...made it quite clear who I was referrig to

Tony Martin comment was seperate point ...DoH !

Also even if I did I would not FB anyone with a suspicion (which I dont have about Tony tbh)

However Amrstrong, Contador, Schlecks, Wiggins & Kloden I am defo calling them (certainly in that 2009 Tour anyway)
 
Re: Re:

Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Robert5091 said:
Worth a read -
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938
Chris Froome could be risking a longer ban as he tries to clear his name in his unfolding Salbutamol case.

That’s according to Rocco Taminelli, a Swiss sports lawyer who represented Diego Ulissi in 2014.

“What he is trying to do is very risky,” Taminelli told VeloNews. “They will try to argue that he did not take more than was allowed. Now he has to prove it, and that is the hard part. If you fail to prove it, you could get two years.”
This.
Stupid tactic, he is not able to face an appropriate ban. He has no balls.
Finally he will get two years ban and cycling will be free of another cheater.
(0,3 % of C2H5OH).
That would be career over for Froome. No way he comes back at 35 and starts winning GTs again.
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Robert5091 said:
Worth a read -
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938
Chris Froome could be risking a longer ban as he tries to clear his name in his unfolding Salbutamol case.

That’s according to Rocco Taminelli, a Swiss sports lawyer who represented Diego Ulissi in 2014.

“What he is trying to do is very risky,” Taminelli told VeloNews. “They will try to argue that he did not take more than was allowed. Now he has to prove it, and that is the hard part. If you fail to prove it, you could get two years.”
This.
Stupid tactic, he is not able to face an appropriate ban. He has no balls.
Finally he will get two years ban and cycling will be free of another cheater.
(0,3 % of C2H5OH).
That would be career over for Froome. No way he comes back at 35 and starts winning GTs again.
No wonder he wants 2 million to ride the Giro ....
Always the wrong people walk away with the dosh
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I get what you are saying, but if you can get through the "Bobke speak", he brings up some very good points. He talks about similar positive tests other riders have had, laughs at the damage control being attempted by both Froome, Sky and the sport as a whole, and also thinks most of this will be whitewashed away, with Froome only stripped of his WC results, allowed to keep his Vuelta win, and any suspension will be served in the off-season, with Froome able to come back for the Giro if he wishes.
Bobke admitted he wasn’t sure about the TUE situation. It’s never a good idea to begin an interview with a confession that you haven’t done your basic homework.

And the notion that Froome could be suspended and not lose the Vuelta is ludicrous. As precedent, Bobke referred to some rider who was suspended in a GT and kept his stage wins. I don’t remember who he claimed, and am not going to listen again, but it couldn’t have been Petacchi, who lost all his stage wins. And even if he didn’t, it’s no precedent for allowing a rider to keep a GT title. You can make an argument that if you test positive after some GT stage, you should be allowed to keep your results on previous stages—just as if you test positive after LBL, then doesn’t invalidate your results in AG or FW. But you can’t test positive during a GT and expect to keep a GC result, which is the result of the entire race. Ain’t gonna happen, not for Froome, not for any rider.

If Froome is suspended, his best case scenario is to lose only the Vuelta and the worlds medals. But at this point, the Giro and maybe the Tour are increasingly in jeopardy, too. If Froome takes the lab test and fails it, he will have to be suspended. There's no way they can whitewash that. He can appeal to CAS, but at that point there's a good chance the decision would not be made before the start of the Giro. Every day he delays increases that risk.

All of which is by way of saying that if Froome has any doubt at all about whether he can pass the test, and he must, his only option is to go directly to CAS. But at this point, it's likewise not clear that the process would be completed before the Giro starts. Again, every day of inaction makes it more likely. If the CAS process hasn't concluded by the start of the Giro, we would have another situation where a favorite's status would be in limbo. The Giro organizers will go all out to avoid that, pressuring both sides to finish the process on the threat of not allowing Froome to start otherwise.

As we've discussed in the salbutamol thread, the new USG (urine specific gravity) rule may save Froome's behind.I doubt it, but it's definitely a possibility. In that case, there will be no suspension, he skates, though there will be an uproar over applying a new rule retroactively. But failing that, any suspension will have to include the Vuelta.
 
If Froome goes to CAS and skates on the new USG rule the outcome can be sealed as in the Armistead case. No one will be any wiser apart from the general uproar which will disappear by May. This was probably always Dawgs route to do privately like Armistead, except it was leaked.
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Robert5091 said:
Worth a read -
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938
Chris Froome could be risking a longer ban as he tries to clear his name in his unfolding Salbutamol case.

That’s according to Rocco Taminelli, a Swiss sports lawyer who represented Diego Ulissi in 2014.

“What he is trying to do is very risky,” Taminelli told VeloNews. “They will try to argue that he did not take more than was allowed. Now he has to prove it, and that is the hard part. If you fail to prove it, you could get two years.”
This.
Stupid tactic, he is not able to face an appropriate ban. He has no balls.
Finally he will get two years ban and cycling will be free of another cheater.
(0,3 % of C2H5OH).
That would be career over for Froome. No way he comes back at 35 and starts winning GTs again.
My Lord, I present as my first witness, Mr. Chris Horner ... (Dawg said he likes the Vuelta) :)
 
Re: Re:

Robert5091 said:
movingtarget said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Robert5091 said:
Worth a read -
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938
Chris Froome could be risking a longer ban as he tries to clear his name in his unfolding Salbutamol case.

That’s according to Rocco Taminelli, a Swiss sports lawyer who represented Diego Ulissi in 2014.

“What he is trying to do is very risky,” Taminelli told VeloNews. “They will try to argue that he did not take more than was allowed. Now he has to prove it, and that is the hard part. If you fail to prove it, you could get two years.”
This.
Stupid tactic, he is not able to face an appropriate ban. He has no balls.
Finally he will get two years ban and cycling will be free of another cheater.
(0,3 % of C2H5OH).
That would be career over for Froome. No way he comes back at 35 and starts winning GTs again.
My Lord, I present as my first witness, Mr. Chris Horner ... (Dawg said he likes the Vuelta) :)
That was different. When you hit 40 beet juice becomes more effective. Horner tried Salbutamol once but didn't like it...............
 
Basecase said:
Hello

Belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all Clinicians.

Does anyone know what the next step is in Froome / Salbutamol case?
My understanding is the Gucci corporation will have a bad year if Dawg is not cleared and he loses his $2m appearance fee for the Giro. Michelle had already stated Gucci’s spring collection is her favorite.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Wiggo's Package said:
Basecase said:
Hello

Belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all Clinicians.

Does anyone know what the next step is in Froome / Salbutamol case?
The fix is in

1 March the Dawg skates
I just don't get how that is possible. You live and die by the rules as they were at the time of the offense.

John Swanson
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Basecase said:
Hello

Belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all Clinicians.

Does anyone know what the next step is in Froome / Salbutamol case?
The fix is in

1 March the Dawg skates
I just don't get how that is possible. You live and die by the rules as they were at the time of the offense.

John Swanson
Back dated TUE's were possible
when there was a will.
 
danielovichdk2 said:
David Walsh' level of writing has become a farce. This piece is so bad that it should never have been published.

Anyways, here goes.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-explanations-over-team-sky-backing-3v8vkww25
Full text as it’s paywalled;

Sky should explain Giro fee
David Walsh12:00AM January 1, 2018
Chris Froome and Team Sky face an uneasy New Year

Four-time Tour de France champion Chris Froome, left, leads a Team Sky training ride in Mallorca last month. Picture: AP
At this time of year some loose ends should be tied. Not least surrounding the ongoing controversy that circles the sport of cycling, the credibility of Team Sky and the reputation of the four-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome.

The rider’s legal team is engaged with the UCI’s anti-doping foundation (CADF) fighting an adverse drug test for excessive Salbutamol at the Vuelta a Espana last September. Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book. Sometime this year, there will be a result.

In the meantime I would like to see Brian Cookson explain himself. Before 2013, Cookson was president of British Cycling. At that point he decided to stand against the then president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid. Many within the sport were on Cookson’s side. Unlike McQuaid, he hadn’t been involved during the Lance Armstrong era and in the run-up to the election he talked the anti-doping talk and spoke of a new beginning for cycling.

Having won the election, he agreed to an annual salary £76,000 ($131,300) less than what McQuaid had received. Still, at £235,000 he wasn’t being badly paid. Many of those who had wanted Cookson elected were underwhelmed by his presidency. He was good on diplomacy but not as strong on doping as many had hoped he would be. He travelled a lot, spoke about development, women’s cycling, but didn’t see the sport needed him to lead on anti-doping. Ultimately, judgment on his reign was delivered last September when he stood for re-election and was soundly beaten by French challenger David Lappartient. He said he was surprised by the result. He shouldn’t have been.

Here’s what Cookson needs to explain. Earlier this month he spoke publicly about Team Sky and argued that in the light of an inconclusive UK Anti-Doping investigation into a mysterious medical package delivered to Sky in 2011, the team was in the clear. The UKAD investigation proved neither guilt nor innocence on Sky’s part but Cookson wanted the reputations of the team and Bradley Wiggins reinstated. He admitted the team had pushed the rules in getting therapeutic use exemptions for Wiggins but it was time to forget that.

“UKAD have not been able to put a case together so that’s the end of the story,” Cookson said.

At the time he was making the case for the renewal of trust in Team Sky the former president must have been aware of the adverse analytical finding hanging over Froome, a case involving a urine sample with twice the legal limit for Salbutamol. What was Cookson thinking? Was he not shocked by the possibility that cycling’s champion and the rider that inspired belief in Team Sky was facing a potential doping ban? Why at that very moment, knowing what he knew, did Cookson go public in relation to the team?

A second and no less easily explained loose end from the ­Froome affair is Team Sky’s deal with the organisers of the Giro d’Italia, which resulted in a commitment from the team that their star rider would compete in the 2018 race in return for a €1.4 million ($2.15m) appearance fee. Giro organiser Mauro Vegni denied that he agreed an appearance fee.

“Suggestions like that (with Froome) create problems for us with other riders,” Vegni said. “Imagine if another rider comes to me and says, ‘You gave Froome something, so what about me?’ I always deal with the teams. I’ve not personally spoken to Chris Froome, I’ve only spoken to team boss Dave Brailsford.”

Sources inside Team Sky and RCS, the media group that organises the Giro, have confirmed a €1.4m fee was agreed. Late last month Team Sky and RCS announced Froome’s participation in the 2018 Giro. There was a video promoting his expected appearance in the race and it was clear the people behind the Giro d’Italia believed they had pulled off a coup in convincing the Tour de France champion to come to their race. Two weeks later the story of Froome’s Salbutamol problem became public and Vegni quickly realised the great coup had become a problem.

It was the timing of the story that killed him. “Perhaps we are simply very unlucky,” Vegni lamented, “but as soon as we announce with great fanfare the presence of Froome at the next Giro, boom, the sky falls in.”

From that it was clear that during the negotiations with Team Sky to have Froome at the 2018 Giro and the commitment to hand over a €1.4m appearance fee, nobody on the Sky side mentioned anything about the Salbutamol test. It is safe to suggest that had he known about the adverse test, he wouldn’t have agreed the appearance fee. The question for Team Sky is straightforward. Did the team think it was ethical to withhold the information about the test while negotiating a substantial fee? Would it not have been fairer to withdraw from the Giro negotiations?

Vegni is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If Froome’s case is not resolved before the Giro in May, the Sky rider will be entitled to compete but Vegni has indicated he wouldn’t want Froome in these circumstances. It is a mess that Sky knowingly entered into. The Giro organisers walked into it blindfolded. Team Sky need to publicly explain what they were about when they negotiated the €1.4m appearance fee.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
I just don't get how that is possible. You live and die by the rules as they were at the time of the offense.
John, come on, you're a smart guy. You have to know money trumps justice, logic and many other things. Since the rules on this, and past suspensions haven't been 100% consistent, you have to at least somewhat entertain the thought this is going to get whitewashed away for the most part.

I firmly believe what much of the UCI is doing right now behind closed doors is trying to find a way to make this disappear into the past as quickly as possible in order to protect the sport and cash flowing into it. The most likely route to me is strip his bronze medal at the World's, and give him an off-season suspension allowing him to get back in time to compete in the Giro, coupled with getting him to apologize for making a "mistake", then the UCI accepts that "mistake" and everything goes along as it was before in this pseudo-clean post-Lance world, and forgets about this over the winter.

Maybe I'm a pessimist, maybe justice will prevail, and considering how far over he was, he'll lose his Vuelta win, and face a ban of a year, if not two, I just don't think this is a case where Froome, and the powers that be in the sport will live and die by the rules, as you put it.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
ScienceIsCool said:
I just don't get how that is possible. You live and die by the rules as they were at the time of the offense.
John, come on, you're a smart guy. You have to know money trumps justice, logic and many other things. Since the rules on this, and past suspensions haven't been 100% consistent, you have to at least somewhat entertain the thought this is going to get whitewashed away for the most part.

I firmly believe what much of the UCI is doing right now behind closed doors is trying to find a way to make this disappear into the past as quickly as possible in order to protect the sport and cash flowing into it. The most likely route to me is strip his bronze medal at the World's, and give him an off-season suspension allowing him to get back in time to compete in the Giro, coupled with getting him to apologize for making a "mistake", then the UCI accepts that "mistake" and everything goes along as it was before in this pseudo-clean post-Lance world, and forgets about this over the winter.

Maybe I'm a pessimist, maybe justice will prevail, and considering how far over he was, he'll lose his Vuelta win, and face a ban of a year, if not two, I just don't think this is a case where Froome, and the powers that be in the sport will live and die by the rules, as you put it.
Of course we all know what's going on but there is chance. Froome and Sky are betting on all or nothing and this might be their fall. They will try to prove that there was no fault of negligence on their part, they want to be exonerated, they don't want to recognize the violation nor apologize, they don't want Froome suspended or stripped of anything. They are clean. If they fail to prove that Froome took the legal amount of salbutamol and the result of the AAF was due to the extraordinary physiology of the rider and the fantastic circumstances when it occurred then he has a fairly good chance to be suspended for a long time. So it's basically between not guilty and guilty with serious consequences, there is no middle ground where he'll get some two months ban like Bresciani for eating dinner with his mom. I think it's UCI's and the new rule of the French guy, Lappartient's credibility at stake. If he misses this opportunity we can all move to the "Lappartient is worse than Cookson" thread.
 
Rollthedice said:
So it's basically between not guilty and guilty with serious consequences, there is no middle ground where he'll get some two months ban like Bresciani for eating dinner with his mom. I think it's UCI's and the new rule of the French guy, Lappartient's credibility at stake. If he misses this opportunity we can all move to the "Lappartient is worse than Cookson" thread.
Excellent post. You may be right. I guess I've just been around so long, seen enough of the ugly side of things, that I'm pessimistic.

Of course logic tells anyone, certainly anyone in the Clinic, that he's guilty with serious consequences. But time will tell how blind justice is here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts