Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1098 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Yep, just sit out 2019, enjoy his money, his wife and his kid ! Will he ever win a GT again if 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.
 
Re:

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.
 
Vegni today:

"We await the next steps of the UCI, especially on the request presented by Team Sky. We as organizers of the Tour of Italy do not want to get bitten, but we want a certification by the UCI that allows the rider to be at the start of the next Giro d'Italia. They will have to tell us if the cyclist is suspended, or he can race regularly. We certainly do not accept a Contador bis or a retrospective process "
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
Vegni today:

"We await the next steps of the UCI, especially on the request presented by Team Sky. We as organizers of the Tour of Italy do not want to get bitten, but we want a certification by the UCI that allows the rider to be at the start of the next Giro d'Italia. They will have to tell us if the cyclist is suspended, or he can race regularly. We certainly do not accept a Contador bis or a retrospective process "
So, if the case isn't resolved by May Vegni will unkindly ask Sky to come without Froome?
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Rollthedice said:
Vegni today:

"We await the next steps of the UCI, especially on the request presented by Team Sky. We as organizers of the Tour of Italy do not want to get bitten, but we want a certification by the UCI that allows the rider to be at the start of the next Giro d'Italia. They will have to tell us if the cyclist is suspended, or he can race regularly. We certainly do not accept a Contador bis or a retrospective process "
So, if the case isn't resolved by May Vegni will unkindly ask Sky to come without Froome?
Vegni has to be the most incompitent tool in the history of Italian cycling promotion. Anything this guy proposes is a disaster waiting to happen, any call of judgment an utter disgrace. Bringing the Giro to the apartheid state of Israel is just the latest in an endless line of self-serving, ill-considered initiatives that it realy doesn't even bare thinking about. It's possible that Vegni's irresponsible move makes Italy a prime target for a punative Islamic terrorist strike, likely during high tourist season in some high profile cultural heritage site. And all this just to sell "his race" and increase his already inflated sense of worth.

Even in Froome's and Sky's case, Vegni couldn't care less about the ethical concerns, or the damage the affair does to a sport he himself is invested in promoting. No, what really concers that shameless swine, is whether or not he gets the current "biggest" rider in cycling to "glorify" the Giro and himself. Nothing more.
 
Re:

webvan said:
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
As far as I understand he says he wants some kind of official confirmation from UCI that Froome can ride. I have no idea how this is possible.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Right but that doesn't make any sense in light of the facts/situation/process, he CAN ride with the current rules but judging by rhubroma's post above I suppose we shouldn't waste too much time trying to understand what this guy says ;-)

The only way to avoid any risk of a retrospective ban by the start of the Giro is :
1. LADS and Froome come to an agreement where his ban ends before the start of the Giro
2. WADA state they will not appeal that agreement
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
webvan said:
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
As far as I understand he says he wants some kind of official confirmation from UCI that Froome can ride. I have no idea how this is possible.
Once again it just shows how blockheaded Vegni is, or how shameless. He should know that the UCI can't suspend a rider for an AAF, before the rider in question's case has not reached a guilty verdict in CAS, but even then the rider has a chance to appeal. Sure the UCI has created its own problems with such a wishy washy policy in regards to AAFs and specifically salmbutamol.

So either Vegni is a complete incompitant idiot, or else he is shamelessly trying to pressure the UCI into an affirmative public declaration, to let him off the hook should Froome ride the Giro and then recieve a retroactive ban. Either way, Vegni is a disgrace to Italian cycling.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
webvan said:
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
As far as I understand he says he wants some kind of official confirmation from UCI that Froome can ride. I have no idea how this is possible.
If Froome's AAF is unresolved then "he can ride" is the default position

Can't see the UCI sticking their neck out and trying to stop Froome riding given the blowback from Cookson's ill-judged attempt to stop Krueziger riding in analogous circumstances

The Giro organisers will have to make the call themselves if it's going to happen. But they're conscious that a legal challenge from Froome will likely result. So they're trying to put the UCI on the end of that writ. Not gonna work though
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Rollthedice said:
webvan said:
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
As far as I understand he says he wants some kind of official confirmation from UCI that Froome can ride. I have no idea how this is possible.
If Froome's AAF is unresolved then "he can ride" is the default position

Can't see the UCI sticking their neck out and trying to stop Froome riding given the blowback from Cookson's ill-judged attempt to stop Krueziger riding in analogous circumstances

The Giro organisers will have to make the call themselves if it's going to happen. But they're conscious that a legal challenge from Froome will likely result. So they're trying to put the UCI on the end of that writ. Not gonna work though
Exactly, and it just goes to show what hands move the reigns of this sport. Vegni is attempting to exploit a feeble UCI policy for his own advantage, but not the sport's, to legitmize his ferverent desire to have Froome at all costs at the start line of the Giro in Jerusalem this May (and a convenient alibi when Froome recieves his ban to justify his prior decision).

As you say, however, not gonna work.
 
Il Corriere’s claim that Chris Froome wants to negotiate a backdated ban adds to the confusion over his salbutamol case
Il Corriere’s claim that Froome could negotiate a backdated ban is flawed. UCI rules set out that, in the event that no provisional suspension is imposed, any ban resulting from an AAF being confirmed as an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) begins on the day on that confirmation is delivered.
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comment/chris-froome-denies-negotiating-six-month-ban-revelations-dont-stack-367531?

This Cycling Weekly article does add to my confusion, because they state the conditions of the plea bargain are impossible, since the sanction would not be backdated to September.
In which case, would be true that the plea bargain scenario is "completely untrue"

Also, JV said: even if it were not completely untrue, he expects WADA to appeal for a ban of more than one year


So despite the extensive discussion by everyone here on procedural matters, I remain ignorant of this murky situation
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
The UCI isn't deciding anything, so that is a false proposition. Basic logic dictates that anything is implied from a false proposition. "If Vaughters is knowledgeable, there will be pigs in the sky" is a trivially true example.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Blanco said:
Merckx index said:
My two cents:

1. A compromise solution between 5-6 months and 9-12 months would be 8 months, so Froome would miss the Giro, but could prepare for and ride the Tour. Why would there be a compromise? Because both sides want this resolved ASAP, and neither side wants Froome racing with his status ambiguous. And most important, both sides have leverage, which they can use to bring pressure on CADF. If WADA thinks the suspension is too short, they can threaten to appeal it, so Froome rides both GTs under suspicion. Again, on one wants that. If Froome thinks the suspension is too long, he can avoid CADF completely and go directly to CAS. He might lose big there, but at least in that situation he could ride the double, again under suspicion, something no one wants. If he accepts a nine to twelve month ban, he won’t be able to ride either, so he would have little to lose by declining to accept that. His lawyers have probably told him that at worst he would get twelve months, anyway.

2. The Corriere story may have been leaked intentionally by Froome’s team. Why would they do that? To put a stop to all the critics pushing him to resolve the issue before he begins racing. If this story is true, Froome is doing everything he can to settle the matter ASAP, and at least must be given credit for that. Why then is Froome denying it? Because the deal isn’t done yet, and as noted above, if Froome doesn’t like the terms, he may go directly to CAS. If he confirms that he’s willing to accept any suspension, that could hurt his case there.
My two cents:

1.Froome will get at least a year, if not more. Unlike Ulissi, who made some kind of a deal right away, he basically didn't know what to do, nor he does at the moment it seems. First he thought all-mighty Sky will find a solution. He forget that Sky is not so mighty anymore without Cookson, and McQuaid before him. So when Sky card failed, he reached for the money and he hired expensive lawyer, thinking he will find some satisfying solution. That card failed too, so now Michelle is in charge and trying to make a deal, but I'm afraid it's little too late. So I think at least a year for him.

2.He's a done deal after suspension. He's no Contador or Valverde. You need pure class to comeback similarly strong after suspension, and he lacks that very much. He owes his success exclusively to doping and protection which Sky had. Those days are over now with new president. Some new faces will emerge this year, and we will see during the season who they are...
Just found this in the cupboard. Bit dusty ... but still good .... I guess.

“And then I realized--like I was shot...like I was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, "My God, the genius of that, the genius ...” :rolleyes:
Well, well... Is this the famous "good bike racing" fan :lol: Very inspiring post indeed.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Rollthedice said:
webvan said:
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
As far as I understand he says he wants some kind of official confirmation from UCI that Froome can ride. I have no idea how this is possible.
If Froome's AAF is unresolved then "he can ride" is the default position

Can't see the UCI sticking their neck out and trying to stop Froome riding given the blowback from Cookson's ill-judged attempt to stop Krueziger riding in analogous circumstances

The Giro organisers will have to make the call themselves if it's going to happen. But they're conscious that a legal challenge from Froome will likely result. So they're trying to put the UCI on the end of that writ. Not gonna work though
Exactly, and it just goes to show what hands move the reigns of this sport. Vegni is attempting to exploit a feeble UCI policy for his own advantage, but not the sport's, to legitmize his ferverent desire to have Froome at all costs at the start line of the Giro in Jerusalem this May (and a convenient alibi when Froome recieves his ban to justify his prior decision).

As you say, however, not gonna work.
Indeed

There's alot of manouvering going on right now. In public and in private

But Froome's best/only play is to string it out. And hope the UCI and the GT organisers cave in

And given the public statements of the big UCI/GT players I think the Dawg/the Morgan might be winning so far

:eek:
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
rhubroma said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Rollthedice said:
webvan said:
"especially on the request presented by Team Sky."

What "request" have they made ? To the UCI ?

Besides if nothing happens till the Giro, Froome will be free to ride, everyone knows that so the UCI will be able to confirm he is not suspended but that wouldn't prevent a retrospective ban. Something must have been lost in translation.
As far as I understand he says he wants some kind of official confirmation from UCI that Froome can ride. I have no idea how this is possible.
If Froome's AAF is unresolved then "he can ride" is the default position

Can't see the UCI sticking their neck out and trying to stop Froome riding given the blowback from Cookson's ill-judged attempt to stop Krueziger riding in analogous circumstances

The Giro organisers will have to make the call themselves if it's going to happen. But they're conscious that a legal challenge from Froome will likely result. So they're trying to put the UCI on the end of that writ. Not gonna work though
Exactly, and it just goes to show what hands move the reigns of this sport. Vegni is attempting to exploit a feeble UCI policy for his own advantage, but not the sport's, to legitmize his ferverent desire to have Froome at all costs at the start line of the Giro in Jerusalem this May (and a convenient alibi when Froome recieves his ban to justify his prior decision).

As you say, however, not gonna work.
Indeed

There's alot of manouvering going on right now. In public and in private

But Froome's best/only play is to string it out. And hope the UCI and the GT organisers cave in

And given the public statements of the big UCI/GT players I think the Dawg/the Morgan might be winning so far

:eek:
Traditional, spirited banter aside (my guy/team vs yours, etc.) .... pragmatismo response by all (riders, authorities, media, fans, etc) is best in the long run.

Many perspectives in pro sport. From competition, to rules of the game, to employment, to businees, to fandom. Not an easy balancing act.

Any sanction given to Froome will not please everyone ... keep it real ... let him come back ... move on. Stop the washing machine of Tragedie de Cyclisme.

Best direction is ... Forward
 
Re:

MightyWheelSucker said:
Pragmatism has nothing to do with fair play. I thought fair play is what is Clinic about? From pragmatism perspective, such nasty affairs should never see the daylight.
“Fair Play” likes its chances, its credilbilty as a first ballot choice to the Natural Law HOF. Back in Sunday School and in house league football, I liked its chances.

Fair play can be a nebulous construct ... resting upon syntax, culture, history and many other variables that have a certain degree of inherent flux.

As a guiding principle of goal realisation, I respect its value.

There are numerous shades of unfair play, not excluding ... wheel sucking. The fair response ... is to objectively assess the gravity of such play ... and to react subjectively yet responsibly in meting out a sanction.

In crass (if you will) terms ... egg/kill/goose/golden ... may be ignored, but not without undo risk.

Before you buy a property, take a good walk around.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Traditional, spirited banter aside (my guy/team vs yours, etc.) .... pragmatismo response by all (riders, authorities, media, fans, etc) is best in the long run.

Many perspectives in pro sport. From competition, to rules of the game, to employment, to businees, to fandom. Not an easy balancing act.

Any sanction given to Froome will not please everyone ... keep it real ... let him come back ... move on. Stop the washing machine of Tragedie de Cyclisme.

Best direction is ... Forward
Sounds like the Verbruggen/McQuaid/Cookson mantra. No thanks. Boot the doperz and penalize the teams. The solutions are obvious, but the sport won’t do it.
 
May 13, 2011
651
0
0
Interesting to see the conversation being shifted to a reinstatement at the same time posters are dismissed sarcastically. Washing machine, yes. Could be the same PR approach as before.

Oh, and please spare me a response with big words cleverly put together. It is tiresome.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
Traditional, spirited banter aside (my guy/team vs yours, etc.) .... pragmatismo response by all (riders, authorities, media, fans, etc) is best in the long run.

Many perspectives in pro sport. From competition, to rules of the game, to employment, to businees, to fandom. Not an easy balancing act.

Any sanction given to Froome will not please everyone ... keep it real ... let him come back ... move on. Stop the washing machine of Tragedie de Cyclisme.

Best direction is ... Forward
Sounds like the Verbruggen/McQuaid/Cookson mantra. No thanks. Boot the doperz and penalize the teams. The solutions are obvious, but the sport won’t do it.
Yes and that is because pro-cycling is part of the entertainment industry. I sort of agree with both of you, if you'll excuse my dissonating.

I'm curious though, I'm trying to think of a pro sport that has dealt effectively with doping, and my mind remains blank..
 
Il Corriere’s claim that Froome could negotiate a backdated ban is flawed. UCI rules set out that, in the event that no provisional suspension is imposed, any ban resulting from an AAF being confirmed as an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) begins on the day on that confirmation is delivered.
WADA is confusing here, and I’m not sure CW has it quite right. Article 10.11 does say that a suspension begins when the final decision is made, and it also says that the suspension may be back-dated if the athlete accepts a provisional suspension. But 10.11 also says if there are “substantial delays in the hearing process…not attributable to the Athlete”, the sanction can begin as early as the sample collection of the positive.

So it depends on what would be considered substantial delays, as well as whether Froome was the cause of the delay, but the rules certainly leave open the possibility that Froome could have a back-dated suspension. The exception pretty clearly is meant to discourage athletes from dragging out the process, so that Froome, e.g., could not ride the Giro and Tour, have those results count, then accept a ban after that. But if he were to receive a ban before the Giro, it’s not clear to me that the exception would not apply.

In addition, Article 10.8 says that all results from the time of the positive are disqualified, which seems to mandate back-dating. It does have an exception for “fairness”, which I think means that if an athlete is given a full ban going forward from the time of the decision, it would not be fair to disqualify all results in the period from the positive leading up to that decision. Just to confuse matters further, 10.11 also says at least one half of the suspension must be served going forward from the time of the decision. But this rule did not seem to be followed in Contador’s case, though that is a very complicated and twisted case, legally speaking.
 
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."
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
Traditional, spirited banter aside (my guy/team vs yours, etc.) .... pragmatismo response by all (riders, authorities, media, fans, etc) is best in the long run.

Many perspectives in pro sport. From competition, to rules of the game, to employment, to businees, to fandom. Not an easy balancing act.

Any sanction given to Froome will not please everyone ... keep it real ... let him come back ... move on. Stop the washing machine of Tragedie de Cyclisme.

Best direction is ... Forward
Sounds like the Verbruggen/McQuaid/Cookson mantra. No thanks. Boot the doperz and penalize the teams. The solutions are obvious, but the sport won’t do it.
Yes and that is because pro-cycling is part of the entertainment industry. I sort of agree with both of you, if you'll excuse my dissonating.

I'm curious though, I'm trying to think of a pro sport that has dealt effectively with doping, and my mind remains blank..
(GOOD post, MacB)

Ahhh ... there’s the rub ... in ‘n it?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY