You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.Alpe73 said:Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.rhubroma said:As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.Merckx index said:I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.
But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.
Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”
It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.
So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.
Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.
1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.
2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.
To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.
All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.