Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).

Any theories why it took him the best part of two years to get another job?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Parker said:
A case of a cyclist who tested too high for salbutamol and subsequently got cleared would never be know about publicly (if there are no leaks). There may be many, there may be none.
It seems that after the point at which UCI offered a cyclist "Acceptance of Responsibility" but the cyclist rejected it, then there will be a record of the fact the case was referred to Anti-Doping Tribunal

Article 7 Confidentiality
1. The Tribunal shall ensure that any information disclosed to it in connection with the
proceedings and not otherwise in the public domain shall be kept confidential and shall
be used only in connection with the disciplinary proceedings at hand.
2. Likewise, all Parties as well as the Secretariat, witnesses, experts, interpreters or any
other individual involved in proceedings shall keep confidential any information
disclosed in connection with the proceedings.
3. Para. 2 above does not restrict UCI’s right to make public announcements regarding
the existence
and status of any pending matter.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/16/95/42/Anti-DopingTribunalProceduralRules_English.pdf

So it seems there aren't secret Anti-Doping Tribunal cases, the UCI definitely doesn't have to conceal any case at that point. And I don't see what their motive would be in: both sending the case to Anti-Doping Tribunal, and at the same time, pretending the case no longer exists

If the cyclist is acquitted, then what the case was about, and why they got off, can remain secret at the request of the athlete... but there is still a record that there was a referral to Anti-Doping Tribunal. That's my impression based on the documents
Just because they can make public announcements it doesn't necessarily follow that they will. The UCI appear to have a policy of keeping anti-doping cases low profile - putting out a spreadsheet as a notification of sanctions. They're unlikely to release information they don't have to.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
Yeah sure he did.

Real story: He took a year and a half to write 60 pages which O'Driscoll's wife (a novelist herself) read and declared to be rubbish which lead to a parting of ways.

Apparently, the joke among journalists was that he was fired because O'Driscoll read it and wondered why he wasn't in it.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
Yeah sure he did.

Real story: He took a year and a half to write 60 pages which O'Driscoll's wife (a novelist herself) read and declared to be rubbish which lead to a parting of ways.

Apparently, the joke among journalists was that he was fired because O'Driscoll read it and wondered why he wasn't in it.
Hey Parker

this is the wrong trhead to rubbish Kimmage's golden halo
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
Yeah sure he did.

Real story: He took a year and a half to write 60 pages which O'Driscoll's wife (a novelist herself) read and declared to be rubbish which lead to a parting of ways.

Apparently, the joke among journalists was that he was fired because O'Driscoll read it and wondered why he wasn't in it.
You're coming out with some zingers today :rolleyes:

You'll be claiming next that no one had any doubts about Wiggo when he won the TdF

Ohh...
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
But there was very little negative sentiment towards Wiggins when he was winning.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The news that Sky had hired Leinders broke during the 2012 TdF which is of course the one Wiggo won. No negative sentiment :lol: :lol:

Surely you must remember this rant from Wiggo on one of the 2012 TdF rest days:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9385050/Tour-de-France-2012-furious-Bradley-Wiggins-hits-out-over-drugs-slurs-as-Thibaut-Pinot-wins-stage-eight.html

“I say they’re just f------ w------. I cannot be doing with people like that. It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives. “It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s---, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. C----.”

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph.
I would be very surprised at that - why would the Barclay brothers do anything to help Murdoch (and The Times)?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
But there was very little negative sentiment towards Wiggins when he was winning.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The news that Sky had hired Leinders broke during the 2012 TdF which is of course the one Wiggo won. No negative sentiment :lol: :lol:

Surely you must remember this rant from Wiggo on one of the 2012 TdF rest days:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9385050/Tour-de-France-2012-furious-Bradley-Wiggins-hits-out-over-drugs-slurs-as-Thibaut-Pinot-wins-stage-eight.html

“I say they’re just f------ w------. I cannot be doing with people like that. It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives. “It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s---, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. C----.”

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph.
I would be very surprised at that - why would the Barclay brothers do anything to help Murdoch (and The Times)?
Honour among thieves ;)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
https://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/uci-could-impose-provisional-ban-on-chris-froome-as-anti-doping-case-continues_sto6509909/story.shtml

'The UCI has... clarified [its] position with regard to article 7.9.3 in its anti-doping rules. This states that the Switzerland-based body can impose a provisional ban when there has been an adverse analytical finding, it just has never done it before for a salbutamol case or any other specified substance, for that matter. Press Association Sport understands that the UCI is actually continuing to evaluate its position and may trigger article 7.9.3 if the case is not moving along fast enough.'
 
Re:

webvan said:
So Lappartient hadn't been briefed about that rule ? Odd...I wonder where they clarified that actually ?
Since now he has an official new director general, Ms Amina Lanaya, former head of legal services, she maybe reminded him of this article:

7.9.3 Provisional Suspension based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances, Contaminated Products, or for other Anti-Doping Rule Violations

For any potential anti-doping rule violation under these Anti-Doping Rules asserted after a review under Article 7 and not covered by Article 7.9.1 or 7.9.2, the UCI may impose a Provisional Suspension prior to analysis of the Rider’s B Sample (where applicable) or prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8.
 
Jun 27, 2016
5
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
TheSpud said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
I think a lot of it also comes from how they ride races especially the mountain stages - ie very similar to USP. Get the yellow, then put your team at the front keeping the pace high protecting your leader thereby preventing any serious attacks. To be honest I'm not sure there is really any other way of winning a GT. You need a strong team for it - using your superior budget to buy strong riders (who are happy to play second fiddle) helps as well.
Forgot to add.

Having a strong team then obviously raises questions, for which there would be a myriad of answers (money, training, drugs, etc.).
Are you saying that there is a correlation between the budget and who gets caught (with their hand in the cookie jar or an inhaler in the jersey pocket) ?
 
Wiggo's Package said:
https://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/uci-could-impose-provisional-ban-on-chris-froome-as-anti-doping-case-continues_sto6509909/story.shtml

'The UCI has... clarified [its] position with regard to article 7.9.3 in its anti-doping rules. This states that the Switzerland-based body can impose a provisional ban when there has been an adverse analytical finding, it just has never done it before for a salbutamol case or any other specified substance, for that matter. Press Association Sport understands that the UCI is actually continuing to evaluate its position and may trigger article 7.9.3 if the case is not moving along fast enough.'
Does this refer to the WADA code? Because there is no Article 7.9.3 in the current code, though Articles 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 are clearly concerned with the topic of provisional suspensions. Article 7.9.2 does say that signatories (which would include UCI) may adopt rules allowing imposition of a provisional suspension, but only if the athlete is given the chance for a provisional hearing. So my interpretation is that this rule could be used to prevent dragging out the case, but can't be imposed just because the hearing continues past the start of the Giro. Though 7.9.2 also allows for the provisional suspension to be imposed after the hearing begins, so maybe it could be used to prevent him from riding the Giro. Like so much of the Code, the exact wording allows for some ambiguity.

a Provisional Suspension may not be imposed unless the athlete or other Person is given either: (a) an opportunity for a Provisional hearing, either before imposition of the Provisional Suspension or on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension
Finishing the Anti-Doping Tribunal decision can take months
I think most of the time involves submissions of documents to the judge. Once that has been done, the judgment may occur I believe within a few weeks. Given all the back and forth between Froome and LADS implied from media reports, I would think both sides have most of the necessary documents. We will see, though.
 
The weird thing with Froome's strategy recently is that it is losing him goodwill in the court of the public. His marketability is going down and therefore his value and long term income. It is almost as though the strategy was to sweep it under the carpet, and when that failed the strategy was being set by someone without a strategic mindset. Therefore the ridicluous attempts to explain things away using specific gravity, dehydration, episodic kidney failure and the like. If indeed this is the case, his lawyers must be pulling their hair out because their client has a rogue strategist. Would explain why Sky is keeping their distance. Indeed the recent strategy seems focused on ensuring the giro start fee rather than anything longer term.

If so, this could become fun as private arguments between parties become public.

Wonder what was in the fridge.
 
Re:

Random Direction said:
The weird thing with Froome's strategy recently is that it is losing him goodwill in the court of the public. His marketability is going down and therefore his value and long term income. It is almost as though the strategy was to sweep it under the carpet, and when that failed the strategy was being set by someone without a strategic mindset. Therefore the ridicluous attempts to explain things away using specific gravity, dehydration, episodic kidney failure and the like. If indeed this is the case, his lawyers must be pulling their hair out because their client has a rogue strategist. Would explain why Sky is keeping their distance. Indeed the recent strategy seems focused on ensuring the giro start fee rather than anything longer term.

If so, this could become fun as private arguments between parties become public.

Wonder what was in the fridge.
if Michelle is in charge then she presumably was emboldened by the the whole badzilla episode and the success of post hoc diagnosis.....I mean it's now perceived wisdom in the cycling and mainstream press, when SDB appeared to not even know it might be affecting performance or even that he had it!!!! Of course it never had to sustain close examination of doctors and lawyers...then we had Michelle 'reaching out' to Swart to provide another back story with the weight and fax, again now perceived wisdom and again something which never had to sustain close examination other than from from the readership of esquire.....but as we saw with the select committee...SDB and marginal gains falls apart very quickly and very easily when put under any real sort of scrutiny...a bit like some of these attempts to explain it......the bar has been set far higher now.......for example...(and of course I could be wrong but) even the diagnosis of asthma (EIA) itself went unremarked upon until 2014 and not even known about by a former team manager, presumably substantiation and details of the condition will need to be revealed for any scientific explanation'...it may be the reluctance to have these details laid bare that is pushing Froome to settlement rather than any attempts to ride near-future GTs......for example, and think it might be in other thread, but did Froome not ride when salbutomol required a TUE? surely that is of medical record?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
It's possible that Anti-Doping Tribunal verdict could be finished before this year's Giro - just not likely, because the defense probably has ways of stretching out the case procedurally
In a way it might be better for Froome, if he gets himself banned for 2 years sooner rather than later, then he will be eligible for more events of the 2020 cycling season

This little-known rule described in the article could give the UCI a way to defuse the situation, so that the Giro organizers don't have to refuse to let Froome start. It may be that the rule has never been used for salbutamol before, but on the other hand, there has probably never been a defendant as recalcitrant as Froome / Sky before.
Sky could have suspended Froome last year, and Froome could have suspended himself at any time
Whether the UCI would actually invoke 7.9.3 to provisionally suspend Froome must be in doubt I would imagine that any such suspension would be met with an immediate legal challenge from Mike Morgan which might succeed

However briefing the media on 7.9.3 is a useful tool for the UCI it's a threat to call Froome's bluff if he doesn't get on with things

Will Froome fold or re-raise? The game of high stakes legal poker just got more interesting
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

Rollthedice said:
Maybe he was already handed an acceptance of consequences by Lads with a suspension, Froome refused and now it's for the Tribunal to decide?
That seems likely. Although maybe LADS felt unable to offer an acceptance of consequences with suspension because Froome didn't offer any evidence they could hang their hat on
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

CTQ said:
https://twitter.com/stephenfarrand/status/959810181638119424

.@DLappartient tells NOS that if the UCI suspends @chrisfroome they would lose an appeal to CAS.
I have no idea why Lappartient would make that opinion public

Must be the worst poker player ever :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS