Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1101 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
This was that Dutch TV station, conducting an interview with Lappartient in French, which probably has not hit the English-language press yet. So, here is my French transcription of the conversation in the video, and translation into English
Autre chose - l'affaire salbutamol de Chris Froome. Ça ne prend pas trop de temps maintenant?

Lappartient: J'espère, mais je ne suis pas dans la procédure quotidienne. Je ne sais pas exactement où ils en sont. Je sais que ça avance, néanmoins. Et on espère tous que ça soit résolu, le plus rapidement possible. Si possible, avant le Giro. Mais malheureusement, l'UCI en telle n'a pas prise sur la durée, on va dire, de la procédure. Tout ça est sous contrôle, mais il y a plus autres autorités, on va voir, le Tribunal Anti-Dopage de l'UCI

Mais, pourquoi vous ne le suspendez pas vous-même?

Lappartient: Légalement, on a le droit de le suspendre. Sauf que, l'UCI, comme les autres sports, applique le reglement mondial de l'agence antidopage, qui prévoit une suspension automatique pour les produits lourds. Mais, pour les produits, les substances Spécifiées, comme le salbutamol, aucune fédération sportive au monde, quelle qu'elle soit, ne suspend pas à titre conservatoire, et nous l'avons jamais fait pour un autre coureur. Si on le fait pour Chris Froome, il aurait, on va dire, un traitement spécifique, et ça ne serait pas equitable. On perdrait devant la Tribune Arbitrale du sport, c'est évident. Chris Froome est un coureur un peu spécial, parce qu'il a plus de notoriété que les autres. Mais dans la manière qu'on le trait, on doit être égal avec les autres. Et c'est pour ça qu'on agit comme ça.

Chez Sky, ils ont beaucoup de spécialistes, beaucoup des avocats. Est-ce que vous avez vu quelque chose de si gros, dans votre carrière déjà?

Lappartient: Alors, ils auront effectivement sans doute des bonnes spécialistes, pour un cadré, et pour notamment, Monsieur Froome. Et nous avons aussi à l'Union Cycliste Internationale des avocats et spécialistes de qualité. Maintenant voilà, il y a débat d'experts. Monsieur Froome a le droit de faire valoir ses droits. Mais c'est vrai qu'il a un peu plus de moyens qu'un autre coureur. Donc ça peut prendre aussi un petit plus de temps. Et puis, voilà, ils laissent d'apporter des arguments à la défense, et c'est tout à fait son droit.

Vous espérez bien, qu'avant le Giro, c'est décidée?

Lappartient: C'est ce qu'on souhaite. Est-ce possible, je ne sais pas. Sachant qu'ensuite, il y a aussi toutes les possibilités d'appel devant le Tribunal Arbitraire du Sport. Et ça, c'est évident que si ça dévelopait jusqu'à là, ça ne serait pas reglé devant le Giro
Another thing, the Chris Froome salbutamol scandal. Is that going to take not much more time now?

Lappartient: I hope so, but I'm not involved in the daily process. I don't know exactly what point they are at. I know that things are going forward, though. And all of us hope that this is going to be resolved as fast as possible. If possible, before the Giro. But unfortunately, the UCI itself doesn't have control over, shall we say, the duration of the process. It's all under control, but there are also, as you will see, other authorities, the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the UCI.

But, why don't you just suspend him yourself?

Lappartient: Legally, we do have the right to suspend him. Except that, like other sports, the UCI applies the rules of the world anti-doping agency, which provides for an automatic suspension for the heaviest drugs. But for drugs which are only Specified Substances, like salbutamol, no sporting federation in the world, no matter which one, suspends as a protective measure. And we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS. Chris Froome is a rider who is a bit special, because he has more notoriety than the others. But the way in which we deal with him has to be the same as for the others. And for that reason, that's why we're doing it this way.

As for Sky, they have lots of specialists and lots of lawyers. Have you ever seen something this big before, in your whole career?

Lappartient: Sure, they undoubtedly have good specialists for their team, and notably for Mr. Froome. And at the UCI, we also have high quality lawyers and experts. As you can see right now, there is a debate between experts. Mr. Froome is entitled to assert his rights. But, it's true that he has a bit more resources than other riders. Therefore, it will also take a little bit more time. And as you see, they are letting him present his arguments for his defense, and it's entirely his right to do so.

So, are you really hoping that this is going to be decided before the Giro?

Lappartient: That's what we're hoping. Is it possible, I don't know. Knowing that after that, there will also be all the possibilities for appeal to CAS. And that, it's obvious that if it comes to that point, it won't be decided before the Giro.
Thanks for taking the time to do that

When Lappartient says "we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS" he's almost certainly right

With the usual litigation caveats (not least that litigation taken all the way is just so goddam unpredictable on an individual case by case basis so many moving parts...) the general position is that, if an entity has a history of enforcing a specific rule in a certain way (so in this case 7.9.3 has never been invoked in a UCI AAF case), that entity will most likely lose on appeal if it suddenly tries to enforce that rule a different way

While I'm still not sure why Lappertient would concede that point in public it's probably because Morgan has already fired a shot across his bows and said don't you dare but/and it may also be to manage the expectations of those cycling fans who are concentrating and who might be getting their hopes up that Froome will not ride until his case is resolved
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Thanks for taking the time to do that

When Lappartient says "we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS" he's almost certainly right

With the usual litigation caveats (not least that litigation taken all the way is just so goddam unpredictable on an individual case by case basis so many moving parts...) the general position is that, if an entity has a history of enforcing a specific rule in a certain way (so in this case 7.9.3 has never been invoked in a UCI AAF case), that entity will most likely lose on appeal if it suddenly tries to enforce that rule a different way

While I'm still not sure why Lappertient would concede that point in public it's probably because Morgan has already fired a shot across his bows and said don't you dare but/and it may also be to manage the expectations of those cycling fans who are concentrating and who might be getting their hopes up that Froome will not ride until his case is resolved
Never forget that Lappartient is a politician who has his eyes on bigger jobs (French senate). Most of what he does is for show, playing to a domestic audience. In the UK it's how Theresa May made her name - picking largely pointless fights to show her 'toughness' and appealling to her 'base'
 
Rollthedice said:
Mr. Dawg, are you aware of the consequences?
- Not fully.
LOL.

gillan1969 said:
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?
That’s an interesting point about not wanting details to come out. I’ve long felt it strange that there isn’t a shred of public evidence that Froome had asthma or took salbutamol prior to 2014, and in particular, prior to the transformation, which as I noted before, coincides fairly closely with changing the rules so that no TUE is required as long as urinary levels are below a threshold.

I asked here before why Fancy Bears didn’t find this out, since their hacks went back at least to Froome’s Barloworld days, but there was a question about whether he would have been in the WADA database at that time.

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Merckx Index may be right: that if most of the Froome dossier documents have already been exchanged, and UCI wants to fast-track the Anti-Doping Tribunal proceedings, then this little-known suspension rule would be moot. Since Froome will be banned anyway before the start of the Giro.
I looked through all the CADF cases so far, and the maximum time between appointment of the judge (which might have already taken place in the Froome case) and the hearing was about three months (most of the cases did not indicate when the final decision was made; publication date of the proceedings is given, but that comes later).

Also, the fast-track rule seems tailor-made for this situation:

Article 24 Expedited procedure
Upon a reasoned request of a Party, the Tribunal may decide to proceed in an expedited manner if the circumstances so require. In such case, the Single Judge shall issue appropriate directives accordingly.
Even if the decision hasn’t been announced by the time of the Giro, I really don’t see how Froome can ride if they’re in the process, certainly if they’ve reached the stage where the Judge says the investigation is complete, and settles in to make a decision. Everyone would realize that if Froome is suspended, he could be removed in the middle of the race, a la the Chicken, which in some respects would be even more embarrassing than having results stripped later.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Thanks for taking the time to do that

When Lappartient says "we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS" he's almost certainly right

With the usual litigation caveats (not least that litigation taken all the way is just so goddam unpredictable on an individual case by case basis so many moving parts...) the general position is that, if an entity has a history of enforcing a specific rule in a certain way (so in this case 7.9.3 has never been invoked in a UCI AAF case), that entity will most likely lose on appeal if it suddenly tries to enforce that rule a different way

While I'm still not sure why Lappertient would concede that point in public it's probably because Morgan has already fired a shot across his bows and said don't you dare but/and it may also be to manage the expectations of those cycling fans who are concentrating and who might be getting their hopes up that Froome will not ride until his case is resolved
Never forget that Lappartient is a politician who has his eyes on bigger jobs (French senate). Most of what he does is for show, playing to a domestic audience. In the UK it's how Theresa May made her name - picking largely pointless fights to show her 'toughness' and appealling to her 'base'
The French Senate enjoys less prominence than the lower house, the directly elected National Assembly; debates in the Senate tend to be less tense and generally receive less media coverage.
I like how you just make up anything to fit your bias. Im sure you’d love to have deer in the headlights Cookson back, he be sure to give Froome a pass :cool:
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
People who break the rules

They're the absolute worst, eh, Rick? ;)
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
People who break the rules

They're the absolute worst, eh, Rick? ;)
viewtopic.php?p=2204528#p2204528
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
People who break the rules

They're the absolute worst, eh, Rick? ;)
he's been asked why he had an abnormal reading, As it stands he hasn't broken the rules ...Yet

when they make a judgement, then we can say he's broken the rules
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Wiggo's Package has a point, that this thread is getting self-referential and off the topic of Froome
I didn't know at all that CN has a member list, and much less that there is a member suspension list.
Wiggo's Package said:
People who break the rules
  • Ryo Hazuki * … 21 suspensions ….. 497 days served + permaban
    the hog … 29 suspensions ….. 424 days served
    blackcat * … 12 suspensions ….. 289 days served + permaban
    sniper * … 14 suspensions ….. 256 days served + permaban
    rick james … 9 suspensions ….. 155 days served
    BroDeal … 5 suspensions ….. 90 days served
    El Pistolero … 10 suspensions ….. 41 days served
    Netserk … 7 suspensions ….. 31 days served
    The Hitch … 4 suspensions ….. 10 days served
    benotti69 … 3 suspensions ….. 5 days served
the hog is the ultimate survivor, for endurance, prolific achievements, and especially for remaining on the podium, without getting permanently banned from the sport of Clinic. Everyone else with similar pedigree as trolleur gets an asterisk in the record books, with all of their sanctimony titles stripped !

Rising star wins the combativity award for the XC Skiing thread, can expect great achievements in the future :

  • python … 6 suspensions ..... 33 days served
Froome has only one official infraction and zero days suspension served thus far... but his competitive nature means he wants to catch up with y'all soon

Offt, 155 Days for me...the last one was the toughest, they banned me right at the start of the Vuelta and I couldn't post on the Dawgs glorious achievement
 
rick james said:
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.
Yes it is a failed test. The only question is whether there's a legitimate explanation for the failure.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.
Using your logic, you can’t say the leaker broke any rules until s/he has had a trial and a judgment made.

I wonder how many cyclists have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
2000 ng/ml? Zero.

As it stands he hasn't broken the rules ...Yet

when they make a judgment, then we can say he's broken the rules
That’s like saying Tyler hadn’t broken the rules when he tested positive for HBT, nor Floyd for testosterone, nor Contador for CB. True, but I wonder how many people at the time said they hadn’t broken any rules. I wonder if you said that.

Wiggo's Package said:
Excellent CN editorial by Jeremy Whittle on why Froome should withdraw from racing until his legal case has been resolved

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-chris-froome-should-withdraw-himself-from-racing/
Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Wiggo's Package has a point, that this thread is getting self-referential and off the topic of Froome
I didn't know at all that CN has a member list, and much less that there is a member suspension list.
Wiggo's Package said:
People who break the rules
  • Ryo Hazuki * … 21 suspensions ….. 497 days served + permaban
    the hog … 29 suspensions ….. 424 days served
    blackcat * … 12 suspensions ….. 289 days served + permaban
    sniper * … 14 suspensions ….. 256 days served + permaban
    rick james … 9 suspensions ….. 155 days served
    BroDeal … 5 suspensions ….. 90 days served
    El Pistolero … 10 suspensions ….. 41 days served
    Netserk … 7 suspensions ….. 31 days served
    The Hitch … 4 suspensions ….. 10 days served
    benotti69 … 3 suspensions ….. 5 days served
the hog is the ultimate survivor, for endurance, prolific achievements, and especially for remaining on the podium, without getting permanently banned from the sport of Clinic. Everyone else with similar pedigree as trolleur gets an asterisk in the record books, with all of their sanctimony titles stripped !

Rising star wins the combativity award for the XC Skiing thread, can expect great achievements in the future :

  • python … 6 suspensions ..... 33 days served
Froome has only one official infraction and zero days suspension served thus far... but his competitive nature means he wants to catch up with y'all soon
I feel honoured, that’s well over a year in total suspensions! :)

I think I once said, I’d retire if Froome ever got suspended. Looking like I have to hang up the keyboard!
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
It's certainly fair to say that there are apparently contradictory stories coming into the public domain about the current status of Froome's case

The specific point you mention ("that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI") could be explained if LADS and the ADT could be viewed as being independent of the UCI (I think that might be the case but happy to be corrected)

If so then then Froome and his representatives could have been in direct contact with LADS and the ADT while also telling CN they haven't had direct contact with the UCI. Has the feel of a lawyer's answer to deflect from what's really going on...
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
When a media outlet writes "[Name of outlet] understands" it means "we haven't got a clue but here's a rumour we heard and liked"
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Merckx index said:
Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
When a media outlet writes "[Name of outlet] understands" it means "we haven't got a clue but here's a rumour we heard and liked"
https://www.google.it/search?q=%22the+bbc+understands%22&ie=utf-8
shows that at least one UK [Name of outlet] is pretty accurate
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Parker said:
Merckx index said:
Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
When a media outlet writes "[Name of outlet] understands" it means "we haven't got a clue but here's a rumour we heard and liked"
https://www.google.it/search?q=%22the+bbc+understands%22&ie=utf-8
shows that at least one UK [Name of outlet] is pretty accurate
Sometimes rumours are correct.

I would suggest that the BBC (particularly it's news division) gets to hear a much higher quality of rumour than Cyclingnews.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

70kmph said:
Ten more days and CF takes the start of Ruta del Sol to show peloton who is the daddy
See that's what I find insane. Do a GT level block of training in the earliest part of the season and then go racing. This follows no training plan I have ever heard of. I'm glad to be shown wrong, but WTF?

John Swanson
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY