Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1098 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Tim Booth said:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indeleiderstrui.nl%2Fnieuws%2Falgemeen-nieuws%2F150144%2Fla-gazzetta-zaak-froome-rechtstreeks-door-naar-antidopingtribunaal-van-de-uci&edit-text=&act=url
Here is directly from gazzetta website:

https://www.google.ro/amp/www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/01-02-2018/caso-froome-tribunale-antidoping-uci-ora-piu-2401313015607_amp.html

As far as I understand, from reliable sources gazzetta says that after weeks of discussions with Lads the case arrived at the Anti-Doping Tribunal and it will be judged there by one appointed judge.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vegni-calls-on-uci-to-guarantee-race-result-if-chris-froome-starts-giro-ditalia/
Giro d’Italia director Mauro Vegni has called on the UCI to take measures to ensure that Chris Froome (Team Sky) can only start the Italian Grand Tour if there is a guarantee that he will not later be suspended and stripped of his results due to his adverse analytical finding for salbutamol at last year’s Vuelta a España.
WTF?! :surprised:

Edit - pressing for decision ...
 
Rollthedice said:
Tim Booth said:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indeleiderstrui.nl%2Fnieuws%2Falgemeen-nieuws%2F150144%2Fla-gazzetta-zaak-froome-rechtstreeks-door-naar-antidopingtribunaal-van-de-uci&edit-text=&act=url
Here is directly from gazzetta website:

https://www.google.ro/amp/www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/01-02-2018/caso-froome-tribunale-antidoping-uci-ora-piu-2401313015607_amp.html

As far as I understand, from reliable sources gazzetta says that after weeks of discussions with Lads the case arrived at the Anti-Doping Tribunal and it will be judged there by one appointed judge.
That's right and in an interview of Swiss sports lawyer, Rocco Taminelli, in the same daily, we learn that Sky has a say in the appointment process of the judge. These are the Dane Bachmann, the German Haas, the American Wisnosky, the Greek Zagklis and the French Zylbersterin. Taminelli also points out that the Ulissi and Froome cases are completely opposite, since Ulissi admitted to negligence. By contrast for Froome its all or nothing. He wants to come away completely clean.
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
So what about the mystery of Froome doing the Grand Tour of South Africa? Why make it public on Strava?
Is it good as a preparation for another two Grand Tours planned to be raced this year?
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20180201_03333174

"142. For so many kilometers, Chris Froome cycled on average per day for the past month. Good for a total of 4.410.6 km, 137 hours and 59.539 altitude meters. The latter is the same as 56 times Alpe d'Huez. Since December 31st, the Brit posted every day the data of his training rides in South Africa on Strava. His figures far exceed those of the other pros, who cycled 2,500 to 3,000 kilometers in January."

"Froome completing training weeks of 30 hours a month raises eyebrows Also for Marc Lamberts, who guided Jurgen Van den Broeck for years. "Training weeks of 30 hours are no exception, but after two weeks it is time for a relative rest week. The Froome regime can improve an athlete, but I would not recommend it to a single rider. These are volumes of triathletes, who divide these hours between running, cycling and swimming. "

"It is whispered that Froome wants to imitate the Vuelta with this training volume. The theory is then: by making similar efforts combined with the right medical tests, it proves that his too high Salbutamol value in the Vuelta was not due to cheating. The defense of Froome is currently investigating how to prove his innocence. According to the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, they do not have a strict deadline for this. In principle, it can therefore take years, but the relevant committee of the UCI can insist on a reasonable term. It is expected that a first session will soon take place. Until a statement comes, he may in principle race. Where and when is not yet known."
Maybe he's just training, ya know pushing himself that little but further than someone like errmm Jurgen Van den Broeck for example might have done. Maybe preparing to ride 2 Grand Tours in the near future?

Posted on Strava to get into the heads of some of his rivals who think he might be planning to sit this year out?

Just an alternative thought to the 'whispers' you mention. Like you i'm just guessing...
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
thehog said:
webvan said:
Yep, just sit out 2019, enjoy his money, his wife and his kid ! Will he ever win a GT again is that happens ? It's hard to tell, on the one hand he's been so dominant since 2011, but Bertie was too and it took him a while to get back to his best level, say the 2014 TDF where he unfortunately crashed.
No, no, that won’t do. We need a spectacular fall from grace, months of denial followed by a full confession outlining Sky’s team wide doping program backup with a two part interview with Jeremy Kyle.
I must be honest: that´s what I dont wish. I dont want the anti-Sky anti-Froome to enjoy that.

call me dumb, call me what you want.
I don't want another stupid US Postal story. Something that we, cycling fans, already know is happening. I want Froome to take his ban, lose his titles and him and Sky to shut his pi hole!

And the UCI to be more serious and strict about doping so that we don't find ourselves in this predicament again.
 
rhubroma said:
Rollthedice said:
Tim Booth said:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indeleiderstrui.nl%2Fnieuws%2Falgemeen-nieuws%2F150144%2Fla-gazzetta-zaak-froome-rechtstreeks-door-naar-antidopingtribunaal-van-de-uci&edit-text=&act=url
Here is directly from gazzetta website:

https://www.google.ro/amp/www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/01-02-2018/caso-froome-tribunale-antidoping-uci-ora-piu-2401313015607_amp.html

As far as I understand, from reliable sources gazzetta says that after weeks of discussions with Lads the case arrived at the Anti-Doping Tribunal and it will be judged there by one appointed judge.
That's right and in an interview of Swiss sports lawyer, Rocco Taminelli, in the same daily, we learn that Sky has a say in the appointment process of the judge. These are the Dane Bachmann, the German Haas, the American Wisnosky, the Greek Zagklis and the French Zylbersterin. Taminelli also points out that the Ulissi and Froome cases are completely opposite, since Ulissi admitted to negligence. By contrast for Froome its all or nothing. He wants to come away completely clean.
Sounds impossible if he wasn't able to replicate the 2000 in a way that satisfies the judges (and common sense) and we would have heard by now if he had. It sounds like he's going to show up saying : "honest judge, I don't know what happened but believe me I'm innocent maybe it's my kidneys or something else". That's going to get him 2 years straight, at best !
 
webvan said:
rhubroma said:
Rollthedice said:
Tim Booth said:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indeleiderstrui.nl%2Fnieuws%2Falgemeen-nieuws%2F150144%2Fla-gazzetta-zaak-froome-rechtstreeks-door-naar-antidopingtribunaal-van-de-uci&edit-text=&act=url
Here is directly from gazzetta website:

https://www.google.ro/amp/www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/01-02-2018/caso-froome-tribunale-antidoping-uci-ora-piu-2401313015607_amp.html

As far as I understand, from reliable sources gazzetta says that after weeks of discussions with Lads the case arrived at the Anti-Doping Tribunal and it will be judged there by one appointed judge.
That's right and in an interview of Swiss sports lawyer, Rocco Taminelli, in the same daily, we learn that Sky has a say in the appointment process of the judge. These are the Dane Bachmann, the German Haas, the American Wisnosky, the Greek Zagklis and the French Zylbersterin. Taminelli also points out that the Ulissi and Froome cases are completely opposite, since Ulissi admitted to negligence. By contrast for Froome its all or nothing. He wants to come away completely clean.
Sounds impossible if he wasn't able to replicate the 2000 in a way that satisfies the judges (and common sense) and we would have heard by now if he had. It sounds like he's going to show up saying : "honest judge, I don't know what happened but believe me I'm innocent maybe it's my kidneys or something else". That's going to get him 2 years straight, at best !
If this is his strategy he's an idiot and will get 2 years. Should have copped to an 'accidental' overdose and got a lesser ban.
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
It appears that every single defendant who was referred to the Anti-Doping Tribunal got convicted, with severe sanctions, irrespective of which Judge was assigned to the case :

 UCI ADT 01.2015 UCI c. M. Lloyd Mondory 4 years (EPO) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 02.2015 UCI v. Mr Luca Paolini 1.5 years (cocaine) Haas
 UCI ADT 03.2016 UCI v. Ms Blaza Klemencic 2 years (EPO) Zagklis
 UCI ADT 02.2016 UCI v. Mr Fabio Taborre 4 years (EPO) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 04.2016 UCI v. Mr Carlos Oyarzun 4 years (FG-4592) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 01.2017 UCI v. Mr Giampaolo Caruso 2 years (EPO) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 05.2016 & 02.2017 UCI v. Mr Jure Kocjan 4 years (EPO) Haas
 UCI ADT 03.2017 UCI v. Ms Isabella Moreira Lacerda 4 years (bio-passport) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 05.2017 UCI v. Mr Josemberg Nunes Pinho 4 years (19-NA & 19-NE) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 06.2017 UCI v. Mr Alex Correia Diniz 4 years (bio-passport) Haas
 UCI ADT 09.2017 UCI v. Mr. Nicola Ruffoni 4 years (GHRP) Bachmann
 UCI ADT 08.2017 UCI v. Mr Kleber Da Silva Ramos 4 years (CERA) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 04.2017 UCI v. Mr Ralf Matzka 2 years (tamoxifen) Zagklis

And both of the two cyclists who appealed their bans to CAS lost their appeals, with the original Anti-Doping Tribunal judgments upheld :

 CAS 2016 / A / Carlos Ivàn Oyarzun Guiñez v. UCI & UCI-ADT & PASO & CNOC 4 years (FG-4592) CAS appeal
 CAS 2016 / A / 4648 Blaza Klemencic v. UCI 2 years (EPO) CAS appeal

So on the basis of precedence, it seems that: Froome either has to pull off something miraculous, or get banned for two years.
I could not find any example of acquittal for cyclists sent to the Anti-Doping Tribunal - someone please correct this, if there were in fact any athletes who were exonerated or who escaped on technicalities
But those are all clear cut positives for substances that are banned in all circumstances and, cocaine aside, would only have been taken to enhance performance.

Froome on the other hand has taken a drug that he was allowed to take and was publicly known to be taking. It's not a clear cut case with strict liability. It's possible that someone can take too much accidentally (and furthermore not realise they have done so).
 
Well I suppose he has the choice between :
- claiming to the grave that he didn't do anything "untoward" but can't prove it so he will get banned for 2 years (at best)
- admit to negligence and try to negotiate a deal. If WADA appeals though he will have lost everything, his "claim to innocence" and a reduced sentence.

Guess he's stuck between a rock and a hard place !:
 
Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
 
brownbobby said:
Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
:) :)
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
After that list the question remains:

Is it possible to influence the judge
by providing them with marginal gains?
Sky’s bully and bluff techniques have worked for years. Froome on Ventoux motorcycle crash Brailsford was in the judges caravan dictating the terms. Now that Cookson has gone it has limited that approach. The only hope is a Reddie influenced CAS with a sealed outcome of no suspension. Can’t see another way. Worst for Sky is that once a Giro and/or Tour Froome-less will be much more exciting nobody will want him back. The UCI always wins.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
It appears that every single defendant who was referred to the Anti-Doping Tribunal got convicted, with severe sanctions, irrespective of which Judge was assigned to the case :

 UCI ADT 01.2015 UCI c. M. Lloyd Mondory 4 years (EPO) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 02.2015 UCI v. Mr Luca Paolini 1.5 years (cocaine) Haas
 UCI ADT 03.2016 UCI v. Ms Blaza Klemencic 2 years (EPO) Zagklis
 UCI ADT 02.2016 UCI v. Mr Fabio Taborre 4 years (EPO) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 04.2016 UCI v. Mr Carlos Oyarzun 4 years (FG-4592) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 01.2017 UCI v. Mr Giampaolo Caruso 2 years (EPO) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 05.2016 & 02.2017 UCI v. Mr Jure Kocjan 4 years (EPO) Haas
 UCI ADT 03.2017 UCI v. Ms Isabella Moreira Lacerda 4 years (bio-passport) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 05.2017 UCI v. Mr Josemberg Nunes Pinho 4 years (19-NA & 19-NE) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 06.2017 UCI v. Mr Alex Correia Diniz 4 years (bio-passport) Haas
 UCI ADT 09.2017 UCI v. Mr. Nicola Ruffoni 4 years (GHRP) Bachmann
 UCI ADT 08.2017 UCI v. Mr Kleber Da Silva Ramos 4 years (CERA) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 04.2017 UCI v. Mr Ralf Matzka 2 years (tamoxifen) Zagklis

And both of the two cyclists who appealed their bans to CAS lost their appeals, with the original Anti-Doping Tribunal judgments upheld :

 CAS 2016 / A / Carlos Ivàn Oyarzun Guiñez v. UCI & UCI-ADT & PASO & CNOC 4 years (FG-4592) CAS appeal
 CAS 2016 / A / 4648 Blaza Klemencic v. UCI 2 years (EPO) CAS appeal

So on the basis of precedence, it seems that: Froome either has to pull off something miraculous, or get banned for two years.
I could not find any example of acquittal for cyclists sent to the Anti-Doping Tribunal - someone please correct this, if there were in fact any athletes who were exonerated or who escaped on technicalities
But those are all clear cut positives for substances that are banned in all circumstances and, cocaine aside, would only have been taken to enhance performance.

Froome on the other hand has taken a drug that he was allowed to take and was publicly known to be taking. It's not a clear cut case with strict liability. It's possible that someone can take too much accidentally (and furthermore not realise they have done so).
having twice the legal limit of salbutamol is much more of a clear cut positive than a bio-passport case, of which there are two on that list.
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
pastronef said:
thehog said:
webvan said:
Yep, just sit out 2019, enjoy his money, his wife and his kid ! Will he ever win a GT again is that happens ? It's hard to tell, on the one hand he's been so dominant since 2011, but Bertie was too and it took him a while to get back to his best level, say the 2014 TDF where he unfortunately crashed.
No, no, that won’t do. We need a spectacular fall from grace, months of denial followed by a full confession outlining Sky’s team wide doping program backup with a two part interview with Jeremy Kyle.
I must be honest: that´s what I dont wish. I dont want the anti-Sky anti-Froome to enjoy that.

call me dumb, call me what you want.
You're not dumb at all but I don't really understand your thinking. I am firmly in the anti-Sky camp. And it is entirely possible/probable that nothing will change in pro cycling even if Froome is guilty and gets proper
suspension. But really that sounds like so much apathy from you.
I came home from my ride to catch the last 300 meters of today´s Valencia stage. Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
mine is not apathy, I am just looking at how thing are perceived. yes, Movistar and Astana didnt shout fro the rooftops we are clean but you and I know the doping problems those team had, or have.
so as you say, nothing will change in pro-cycling if Froome is guilty and gets a suspension, I agree with you.
some forum members dont blink and eye if Valverde wins or Astana win or Bahrain, while on the other side when any Sky rider does something wow! bad!
so yes, I dont want Sky, DB, Froome etc to crash down big style, as many wish. for spite.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY