Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

They'd be unlikely to extend it if it was Froome appealling. And this whole process would need UCI/WADA to agree not to appeal - and WADA have agreed to this length of ban for salbutamol in other sports.

I really don’t think CAS would be swayed one way or another by who is appealing. That isn’t the way they work. As far as precedent, recent decisions have given longer suspensions for salbutamol use. Sundby only got two months, but he not only was totally transparent about his use, but in lab tests he went over the DL taking the amounts his doctor said were prescribed by nebulizer. In fact, he even went over the limit inhaling 1600 ug in a short period of time.

However, if it gets extended then just start the extra ban from the date of the appeal decision rather than pretending some races didn't happen. They should have done that with Contador.

I don’t think that’s a bad idea in some respects, but it’s not really consistent with the spirit of sanctions. The idea is that a rider is suspended—either in real time or back-dated—from the time of the infraction, not from the time of some legal decision that may occur months or even years later.

It also sets a dangerous precedent. A rider near the end of his career could take advantage of this to get results while he’s still able to, then serve a suspension when he’s either retired, or at an age when he’s less of a contender, anyway. Froome would seem to be favored in this respect—he’s more likely to do well in the double this year than next year or later—and there are other potential cases that would be even worse. Think of LA, for example. Suppose his suspension had begun when the legal process finally finished, rather than being back-dated to when the evidence indicated he was doping. The same applies to all of the other riders sanctioned by USADA at that time.

I can understand how one could look at the differences in these cases and say that the process can determine when it would and when it wouldn't be appropriate to begin a suspension from the time of the final decision rather than from the time of infraction. But the law being what it is, where precedent means a lot, I can easily see this leading to a lot of controversies.

Why would he get a 2 year ban when Pettachi never admitted wrongdoing and got a 9 month ban?

Petacchi’s ban was more than fifteen months, including time suspended prior to the CAS decision. And based on what we know so far, Petacchi had a much better case than Froome. If the USG correction had been allowed—as it is now, as of March 1—he would have gotten off completely.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

They'd be unlikely to extend it if it was Froome appealling.

Marta Bastianelli appealed her one-year ban for taking an appetite suppressant that she hadn't realized contained a banned substance. CONI then counter-appealed. The upshot was she got two years.

And that was an Italian rider who was the reigning world champion at the time of the positive test.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

I don’t think that’s a bad idea in some respects, but it’s not really consistent with the spirit of sanctions. The idea is that a rider is suspended—either in real time or back-dated—from the time of the infraction, not from the time of some legal decision that may occur months or even years later.

It also sets a dangerous precedent. A rider near the end of his career could take advantage of this to get results while he’s still able to, then serve a suspension when he’s either retired, or at an age when he’s less of a contender, anyway. Froome would seem to be favored in this respect—he’s more likely to do well in the double this year than next year or later—and there are other potential cases that would be even worse. Think of LA, for example. Suppose his suspension had begun when the legal process finally finished, rather than being back-dated to when the evidence indicated he was doping. The same applies to all of the other riders sanctioned by USADA at that time.

I can understand how one could look at the differences in these cases and say that the process can determine when it would and when it wouldn't be appropriate to begin a suspension from the time of the final decision rather than from the time of infraction. But the law being what it is, where precedent means a lot, I can easily see this leading to a lot of controversies.

Sure, I understand what you are saying. However, let's remember that for the vast majority of doping infractions a provisional suspension is automatic from the A sample (or is it at the B?). It's only specified substances that allow a continuance of participation.

In such circumstances, with a substance that gets generally shorter bans, I think it is unreasonable to expect a rider to withdraw from competition for longer than some of the bans that have been handed down. Six months shows good will.

As for back dating bans - I feel it shouldn't be done. Either you are free to ride or you are not. Results should be stripped if there was evidence that they were achieved by doping as there was with Armstrong and his teammates. It's Contador (and Valverde before that) that set the bad precedents. Contador was free to ride the 2011 Giro & Tour and should have kept his results and served the rest of his ban by not racing.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Sure, I understand what you are saying. However, let's remember that for the vast majority of doping infractions a provisional suspension is automatic from the A sample (or is it at the B?). It's only specified substances that allow a continuance of participation.

In such circumstances, with a substance that gets generally shorter bans, I think it is unreasonable to expect a rider to withdraw from competition for longer than some of the bans that have been handed down. Six months shows good will.

Parker, meet Ezequiel Mosquera. Ezequiel, meet Parker. Try to get along.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Sure, I understand what you are saying. However, let's remember that for the vast majority of doping infractions a provisional suspension is automatic from the A sample (or is it at the B?). It's only specified substances that allow a continuance of participation.

In such circumstances, with a substance that gets generally shorter bans, I think it is unreasonable to expect a rider to withdraw from competition for longer than some of the bans that have been handed down. Six months shows good will.

Parker, meet Ezequiel Mosquera. Ezequiel, meet Parker. Try to get along.

He was treated very poorly in my opinion. Any justice system has to treat even the guilty fairly.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Sure, I understand what you are saying. However, let's remember that for the vast majority of doping infractions a provisional suspension is automatic from the A sample (or is it at the B?). It's only specified substances that allow a continuance of participation.

In such circumstances, with a substance that gets generally shorter bans, I think it is unreasonable to expect a rider to withdraw from competition for longer than some of the bans that have been handed down. Six months shows good will.

Parker, meet Ezequiel Mosquera. Ezequiel, meet Parker. Try to get along.

I thought he was cleared in 2015 ?

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

Sure, I understand what you are saying. However, let's remember that for the vast majority of doping infractions a provisional suspension is automatic from the A sample (or is it at the B?). It's only specified substances that allow a continuance of participation.

In such circumstances, with a substance that gets generally shorter bans, I think it is unreasonable to expect a rider to withdraw from competition for longer than some of the bans that have been handed down. Six months shows good will.

Parker, meet Ezequiel Mosquera. Ezequiel, meet Parker. Try to get along.

I thought he was cleared in 2015 ?

Yup, Spanish Court overturned his conviction:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mosqueras-doping-ban-overturned/

 

[thehog]

Wait a second... some people are actually buying the "kidney day-off" explanation?

Head over the BikeRadar and yes they are amongst every other ailment he has managed to survive and win four GTs as the same time.

Yes the BR crew take everything Froome, Brailsfraud, Wiggo, etc say on trust. No matter how implausible the story their critical faculties don't kick in. Some might call that naive. Or over-invested emotionally. Whatever

I mean Froome, Brailsfraud, Wiggo, etc couldn't possibly be be lying/doping toerags could they?! Please don't break my heart! Brit don't dope! Hold the line ffs! :lol:

Froome could say he was possessed by a evil spirit which made provide a high reading and the BikeRadar crew would believe it. They are a simple bunch over there not to mention very very angry with the rest of the world.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Froome could say he was possessed by a evil spirit which made provide a high reading and the BikeRadar crew would believe it. They are a simple bunch over there not to mention very very angry with the rest of the world.

At least it isn't Armstrong's constant personal attacks.

Given we had to endure Dr. Coyle's prognostications turned into facts, maybe it's about the same.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

There bound by the UCI's and WADA's rules which means Froome is free to ride as Sky have a WT licence and Froome is not suspended and free to ride until the case is resolved. Any attempt to stop him riding risks civil action.

I'm pretty sure I've seen, in one of these Froome salbutamol threads, someone copying a chapter from TDF rule book which said ASO has a right to reject a rider to participate in case reputation etc. of the race is jeopardized.

Just can't find it now.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

If Froome was smart he would just retire.............for health reasons. Quintana and Bardet fall to their knees with relief, the drug testers have a sudden onset of bug eyes, Brailsford is smiling, the French shrug and normal business resumes...........

Yes the Dawg retires chronic kidney problems good call...

...then makes a comeback in 2019 winning all three GTs for Vino at Astana

 

[webvan]

There you go :

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."

So absent any new development he is clearly not going to be starting the TDF this year. My guess is that they'll ask Sky to handle the PR and come up with some type of excuse to withdraw him along the lines "Dawg is innocent but for the sake of the sport we're (finally) doing the right thing".

 

[bambino]

Re:

There you go :

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."

So absent any new development he is clearly not going to be starting the TDF this year.

There you go, thank you.

So at least ASO can reject Froome to participate to TDF without breaking any UCI or WADA rules.

And I guess the Giro and Vuelta organizers have similar provisions in their hands.

 

[Rollthedice]

If there's a will there is a way.

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

There you go :

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."

So absent any new development he is clearly not going to be starting the TDF this year.

There you go, thank you.

So at least ASO can reject Froome to participate to TDF without breaking any UCI or WADA rules.

And I guess the Giro and Vuelta organizers have similar provisions in their hands.

The argument there is why should Chris Froome who has not been convicted of a doping offence be excluded when several convicted dopers were allowed to start last year? Why should he be excluded when Contador was allowed to start in a similar situation in 2011? It's a massive double standard.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

There you go :

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."

So absent any new development he is clearly not going to be starting the TDF this year.

There you go, thank you.

So at least ASO can reject Froome to participate to TDF without breaking any UCI or WADA rules.

And I guess the Giro and Vuelta organizers have similar provisions in their hands.

The argument there is why should Chris Froome who has not been convicted of a doping offence be excluded when several convicted dopers were allowed to start last year? Why should he be excluded when Contador was allowed to start in a similar situation in 2011? It's a massive double standard.

Times has changed since Conti. I think you've seen the interviews as well and they don't want to be in that situation ever again.

Re to Froome vs. convicted dopers... the ones who have been convicted and served their ban are welcome to join of course. We are talking about different situation here where the investigation would be still open and there is no verdict if he should be under ban or not. Once Froome's case is resolved and he has served his ban (or declared innocent) no-one will have problem of him riding.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Froome could then point to the precedent of Contador in 2011. Those opposing it could point to the precedent of Valverde in 2009.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

There you go :

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."

So absent any new development he is clearly not going to be starting the TDF this year.

There you go, thank you.

So at least ASO can reject Froome to participate to TDF without breaking any UCI or WADA rules.

And I guess the Giro and Vuelta organizers have similar provisions in their hands.

The argument there is why should Chris Froome who has not been convicted of a doping offence be excluded when several convicted dopers were allowed to start last year? Why should he be excluded when Contador was allowed to start in a similar situation in 2011? It's a massive double standard.

It's to do with ethics, morality, having high standards - all those things Brailsfraud claimed for Team Sky a very long time ago now

MPCC teams suspend riders in situations analogous to Froome's because they acknowledge the optics of riders under suspicion racing - they act in the best interests of the sport and not narrow self-interest

And voluntarily suspending riders under suspicion encourages the teams/riders in question to resolve their AAF ASAP whether for better or worse - whereas Froome is choosing to delay the AAF process, thereby trashing the sport's reputation, as a tactic to put pressure on the UCI the settle the AAF in his favour

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Froome could then point to the precedent of Contador in 2011. Those opposing it could point to the precedent of Valverde in 2009.

He could, but Contador was cleared earlier in the year, so not comparable to Froome's case.

 

[roundabout]

Re:

Froome could then point to the precedent of Contador in 2011. Those opposing it could point to the precedent of Valverde in 2009.

Valverde was banned in Italy by that point, so I don't know how his case applies here.

 

[Netserk]

I think Valverde wanted to start the race and abandon before it crossed into Italy. But also very different to today.

 

[webvan]

Re: Re:

Froome could then point to the precedent of Contador in 2011. Those opposing it could point to the precedent of Valverde in 2009.

He could, but Contador was cleared earlier in the year, so not comparable to Froome's case.

Correct, the Spanish federation had given him 6 months backdated and it was over. WADA and UCI appealed to CAS but he was still free to ride.

 

[AnatoleNovak]

Re:

Froome could then point to the precedent of Contador in 2011. Those opposing it could point to the precedent of Valverde in 2009.

... and Di Luca.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

There you go :

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."

So absent any new development he is clearly not going to be starting the TDF this year. My guess is that they'll ask Sky to handle the PR and come up with some type of excuse to withdraw him along the lines "Dawg is innocent but for the sake of the sport we're (finally) doing the right thing".

I'm not so sure. They tried to exclude Virenque in '99 with these or similar rules, and then did an about face under threat of suit. Sky have far deeper pockets.

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

Froome could then point to the precedent of Contador in 2011. Those opposing it could point to the precedent of Valverde in 2009.

He could, but Contador was cleared earlier in the year, so not comparable to Froome's case.

UCI appealed in March:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-appeals-contador-decision-to-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/