Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1099 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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:
Not necessarily, but the economic incentives and media exposure offered by Sky/Murdoch make the issue a thorny one for the cycling establishment. On the other hand, should these prevail, there is another issue and that's the fans on the roads, which the economic incentive and media exposure can't control.
 
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..
Yes, but sport is not the film industry. What you see on the big screens, you know to be fantasy.

Some interesting, if somewhat gratuitous, quotes from Floyd: "There's no belief in that 'zero tolerance' system anymore; that was never a real thing it was just great PR about marginal gains and all these cute little sayings they thought up," Landis said.

To Landis, the case only confirms his view that the anti-doping authorities aren't out to catch cheaters.

"WADA is designed to protect the Olympic committee," he said, "they're not designed to catch people using PED's and here we are again. It's been 11 years but the one thing that bothers me is I went through all that and accomplished nothing. I think Lance feels the same way and he has a right to. If you're going to take us out and say 'these guys are the bad guys,' you can't just sit back on your hands and let things return to exactly the way it was."

I think the point here is that folks on the non-Sky brigade are sick of another charade involving a vapid PR campaign, coming from a nation, pardon, that until Sky has never been a big player in the road end of the sport. To then make a grand entry on the wings of the Murdoch empire, with a rather uppity sense of "Brits don't dope," or "we are whiter than snow," simply came across as insufferable (for anyone with even a minumum knowledge of the sport and its long history of pharmacological warfare).

It's entertainment? Fine. We should take it for what it's worth? That's fine too. Just spare us the bullsh!t.
 
I think I've worked it out.
The how & the why Michelle bans anyone slightly critical on Froome's twitter.

It's to keep the tweets that Chris sees motivational for him.
So he remains focussed in his own cosseted filter bubble.

She often leaves harsh French critics untouched - probably because Chris only reads the brits.

;)
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Tonton said:
If there was any doubt, Froome has come to the conclusion that he can't duplicate the 2000 in a legit way and convince the authorities. Playing dumb is the next logical step, a la Virenque, so he can save his fan base and get a reduced sentence. Since he got popped for a test at the Vuelta, he'll be stripped: I don't see how Froome would remain the winner...

Ban length: retro-active? That's what he would gain for making a deal. And my feeling is that the sentence would make him miss Il Giro: it would look harsh, even though the door would be open for a TdF run.

...and again, when you see how Tour crowds reacted when he was under suspicion, what is it going to be like after a conviction? Yikes...

Deep inside, I hope that he misses the Tour: it would be a toxic atmosphere. But say he misses the Tour, what's left? La Vuelta? Where he got popped? What kind of a welcome would he get there? The only way out that I can imagine would be to play possum in '18, do a ton of PR, be back in '19. At his age, I don't see it.
There is no single way for him to be on the tour. Followers have to understand that. Aso and the Tour went through Armstrong hell. There is no way they will let Froome get a 5th victory at the Tour after what happened. They will use every single possible trick in the bag to prevent it, and the UCI will not go to war with ASO on that, particularly now with Lappartient.

Froome is out of the Tour de France, this is a given.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
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.

Israel using tourism to legitimise settlements, says EU report

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/01/israel-settlements-jerusalem-tourism-un?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard


It's not a coincidence
 
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.
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.
 
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.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/01-02-2018/caso-froome-tribunale-antidoping-uci-ora-piu-2401313015607.shtml
fonti qualificate, consultate dalla Gazzetta, ritengono che, dopo settimane di discussioni, la vicenda abbia già lasciato il Lads per essere giudicata direttamente dal Tribunale antidoping che l’Uci ha voluto, per statuto, indipendente dalla federazione stessa.
"Well-informed sources, consulted by La Gazzetta, believe after weeks of discussions, that the the case has already left LADS, in order to be judged directly by the Anti-doping Tribunal, as the UCI wanted by statute, independent of the federation itself."
Sta di fatto che la vera partita si giocherà davanti al Tribunale, composto da un giudice unico con potere totale... Il giudice sarà una di queste personalità: il danese Bachmann, il tedesco Haas, l’americano Wisnosky, il greco Zagklis, il francese Zylberstein... almeno ufficialmente, la strategia di Froome non è mai cambiata: innocenza a oltranza.
"The fact is, that the real game will play out in front of the Tribunal, consisting of a single judge, with total power. .. The judge will be one of the following persons: the Dane Bachmann, the German Haas, the American Wisnosky, the Greek Zagklis, or the French Zylberstein ... Froome's strategy, at least officially, has never changed : insist on innocence to the bitter end."

Well, well - any interpretations here on the meaning of this medico-legal escalation by the UCI ?
 
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.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
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 !
 
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 legal precedent, 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
 
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).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY