Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1120 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
53*11 said:
Alpe73 said:
pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
It’s NOT about doping ... it never was ... on this thread.

This thread, the Armstrong thread ... are about the politics of envy; camel through the eye of the needle; Emperor’s New Clothes; 7th deadly sin .... voodoo.

Cycling, corporate teams, uppity sports pros .... they’re just the actors for the Theatre of Frustration.

i disagree , its about a team sanctimoniously proclaiming their innocence while being caught out numerous times doing the opposite, its about due process; they have had an AAF, after 5 months they cant explain it and are trying to string out the process until the giro/tour. shame on them and shame on uci if they allow sky another 3 months; no other team would be given such latitude in constructing their defence.
For someone new you've made an inauspicious start - Anti-Doping matters take months to be resolved and that's even for straightforward positive tests - The two positives from the Giro when there was no contention about the facts have just been resolved - We've heard nothing about the Cardoso or Samuel Sanchez cases from July - The Froome case is more complicated than the aforementioned cases so it will take a few months longer - You must also consider that the 'legal people' who hear these cases have other work, so aren't available at the drop of a hat.
i defer to your greater time on this forum!; for all that though i believe Froomes legal counsel was able to attend to his clients predicament quickly, as one would expect for a high profile champion.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
yaco said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.


Sounds just to me.
So why don't each of the race organisers in which Froome participates in 2018 do the same ?

Beppe's suggestion has no legs.
Ruta del Sol owner welcomed him and is happy to have Froome in his race.
And after that the Director of the Giro started to back off from his menace of not letting him participate in the Giro.
 
It seems like every French directeur sportif these days are doing these mini-interviews to trash Froome or Sky

https://video.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/video-vasseur-brailsford-devrait-dire-a-froome-tu-ne-cours-pas_vid1056671/video.shtml

Vasseur: If it were a "normal" rider, he wouldn't do this - it's because Chris Froome is an expensive investment for Sky, a standard-bearer for Sky, that obviously he has a huge influence. I think that the responsibility is not necessarily up to Froome, it's Brailsford who should tell Froome: "you're not gonna ride. Since the situation has not been straightened out, you're not gonna ride". Chris Froome's desire to ride is legitimate, because his remaining career will be short. He's been riding for ten years, he's 32 years old...

Bistrot Vélo: Yeah, he's 32, and if he wants to go for a fifth [Tour de France title], he knows...

Vasseur: ...So, he knows very well, that he can't perform at this level for another five years. I think it's the responsibility of Dave Brailsford to, simply, protect his riders. Because it's also the image of Sky which is at stake, and if you listen even a little, to the rhetoric of Sky, about their zero-tolerance philosophy...

Bistrot Vélo: They say "We have zero tolerance"...

Vasseur: ...it puts them in a jam.

Bistrot Vélo: Yeah, that's obviously a problem.
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Italian press reporting the Dawg's anti-doping tribunal will start end of this week or beginning of next week
http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/2018/02/13/108999/chris-froome-non-vedo-l-ora-di-tornare-andalucia-ruta-del-sol-tuttobiciweb

This is consistent with the report about two weeks ago that it was going to CADF. After appointment of the judge, the defense has fifteen days to submit its documents. After that, the judge looks them over, decides whether more information is needed, and if not, begins to deliberate. So in principle, a decision could be reached as soon as early March. Even if there is some back and forth, as there frequently is, it looks to me that the decision should come before the Giro, as I thought. Froome's team can ask for more time, but if they didn't at this stage, they probably aren't trying to delay the case, and can't at this point unless the judge asks for more information.
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
It seems like every French directeur sportif these days are doing these mini-interviews to trash Froome or Sky

https://video.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/video-vasseur-brailsford-devrait-dire-a-froome-tu-ne-cours-pas_vid1056671/video.shtml

Vasseur: If it were a "normal" rider, he wouldn't do this - it's because Chris Froome is an expensive investment for Sky, a standard-bearer for Sky, that obviously he has a huge influence. I think that the responsibility is not necessarily up to Froome, it's Brailsford who should tell Froome: "you're not gonna ride. Since the situation has not been straightened out, you're not gonna ride". Chris Froome's desire to ride is legitimate, because his remaining career will be short. He's been riding for ten years, he's 32 years old...

Bistrot Vélo: Yeah, he's 32, and if he wants to go for a fifth [Tour de France title], he knows...

Vasseur: ...So, he knows very well, that he can't perform at this level for another five years. I think it's the responsibility of Dave Brailsford to, simply, protect his riders. Because it's also the image of Sky which is at stake, and if you listen even a little, to the rhetoric of Sky, about their zero-tolerance philosophy...

Bistrot Vélo: They say "We have zero tolerance"...

Vasseur: ...it puts them in a jam.

Bistrot Vélo: Yeah, that's obviously a problem.
To be fair, its not just the French is it...
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Italian press reporting the Dawg's anti-doping tribunal will start end of this week or beginning of next week
This is consistent with the report about two weeks ago that it was going to CADF. After appointment of the judge, the defense has fifteen days to submit its documents. After that, the judge looks them over, decides whether more information is needed, and if not, begins to deliberate. So in principle, a decision could be reached as soon as early March. Even if there is some back and forth, as there frequently is, it looks to me that the decision should come before the Giro, as I thought. Froome's team can ask for more time, but if they didn't at this stage, they probably aren't trying to delay the case, and can't at this point unless the judge asks for more information.
hopefully it will be resolved one way or another before the giro then
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Italian press reporting the Dawg's anti-doping tribunal will start end of this week or beginning of next week
This is consistent with the report about two weeks ago that it was going to CADF. After appointment of the judge, the defense has fifteen days to submit its documents. After that, the judge looks them over, decides whether more information is needed, and if not, begins to deliberate. So in principle, a decision could be reached as soon as early March. Even if there is some back and forth, as there frequently is, it looks to me that the decision should come before the Giro, as I thought. Froome's team can ask for more time, but if they didn't at this stage, they probably aren't trying to delay the case, and can't at this point unless the judge asks for more information.
Thanks

If his case is going to be decided within a few weeks it makes his decision to start racing now even more baffling

At which point does Froome go into the lab? Or is his multi-layered defence (dehydration, kidneys, antibiotics, etc) an attempt to argue that his circumstances in the race are un-repeatable in the lab?
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Italian press reporting the Dawg's anti-doping tribunal will start end of this week or beginning of next week
This is consistent with the report about two weeks ago that it was going to CADF. After appointment of the judge, the defense has fifteen days to submit its documents. After that, the judge looks them over, decides whether more information is needed, and if not, begins to deliberate. So in principle, a decision could be reached as soon as early March. Even if there is some back and forth, as there frequently is, it looks to me that the decision should come before the Giro, as I thought. Froome's team can ask for more time, but if they didn't at this stage, they probably aren't trying to delay the case, and can't at this point unless the judge asks for more information.
Thanks

If his case is going to be decided within a few weeks it makes his decision to start racing now even more baffling

At which point does Froome go into the lab? Or is his multi-layered defence (dehydration, kidneys, antibiotics, etc) an attempt to argue that his circumstances in the race are un-repeatable in the lab?

maybe they plan for froome to get another salbutamol AAF in the ruta del sol!
 
Sorry, I missed a step. After the judge has all the paperwork, a date for a hearing is proposed. Sometimes, that is. Often there is no hearing, and usually that appears to be at the judge's discretion. If there is a hearing, there can be some delay, depending on the schedules of the parties, though the hearing can be held by videoconferencing.

Of the thirteen cases, only five had hearings. Of the eight decisions reached without a hearing, in seven cases the judge made this decision; in the other, the rider waived his right to a hearing. In those cases in which there was no hearing, the time between when the investigative phase was closed (no more submissions allowed by either side) and the announcement of the final decision ranged from ten days to three months, with the mean about 45 days. In the cases in which there was a hearing, the same time period ranged from 1.5 to 6 months, with the mean about 90 days. That six months case, though, is an outlier; no other case with or without a hearing exceeded three months. Also, there may be a delay between the time the athlete is informed of the decision and when that decision is made public. E.g., in the Caruso case, a hearing was held in the middle of March 2017, during which time the rider decided not to contest the case further. But the decision was not announced until June of that year.

So how fast Froome's case will proceed from here depends mainly on two factors: 1) whether the judge requests further documents from either side, and if so, if there are substantial delays in meeting those requests; and 2) whether a hearing is held. In the best or fastest case scenario, with no further documents requested, and no hearing, there is a very good chance a decision will be made before the Giro, and almost for certain it would be made before the Giro is finished. If there is a hearing, the odds are very good a decision will be made before the Giro is finished, and only in very unusual circumstances would the decision not come down before the Tour starts. But if more documents are required, and there are delays in furnishing them, or in challenging the need for them, etc., then all bets are off.

I’ve felt for a long time that institutions and individuals are susceptible to public pressure, and I think the Froome case has gotten to this point at this time at least in part because of all the criticism of his riding with his case unresolved. Though there isn’t enough information to be sure, it does seem to me that Froome, at least since December when the positive was announced, really is trying move this case forward as fast as he can, consistent with a fair examination of all the evidence. I do give him credit for that.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Italian press reporting the Dawg's anti-doping tribunal will start end of this week or beginning of next week
This is consistent with the report about two weeks ago that it was going to CADF. After appointment of the judge, the defense has fifteen days to submit its documents. After that, the judge looks them over, decides whether more information is needed, and if not, begins to deliberate. So in principle, a decision could be reached as soon as early March. Even if there is some back and forth, as there frequently is, it looks to me that the decision should come before the Giro, as I thought. Froome's team can ask for more time, but if they didn't at this stage, they probably aren't trying to delay the case, and can't at this point unless the judge asks for more information.
Thanks

If his case is going to be decided within a few weeks it makes his decision to start racing now even more baffling

At which point does Froome go into the lab? Or is his multi-layered defence (dehydration, kidneys, antibiotics, etc) an attempt to argue that his circumstances in the race are un-repeatable in the lab?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case-reportedly-heading-to-uci-anti-doping-tribunal/
 
I would be surprised if there is no hearing if Froome is fighting the case - One of the reasons we have lawyers is to advocate at these type of hearing - And it's likely one side will ask for more documents which will cause a delay - My guess is the hearing will be in June at the earliest - Then the hearing could go for three to five days and then it will take another 4 to 6 weeks for a reasoned decision - I doubt there will be a decision before July, unless Froome strikes a deal before the tribunal.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

the recuperation IV seems like a damp squib tbh, but im very interested in his opinion on the 2 sets of medical records, the internal systems and who knew what, when. the team stated at commons select committee they had lost medical records and could not retrieve them; this doctor suggests that there were records placed on a cloud service or other internet based service and not just stored on a missing laptop....and medical records are mean to be retained for a minimum of 7 years, right?[/quote]

Slight but important correction. The article states they had an intranet, an internal network used for storing documents. This would indicate a privately owned and operated server, not an external cloud based system. It's important because it indicates a more rigorous approach to document keeping than, I believe, has previously been discussed. In fact I'm pretty sure that any statements about medical records and doctors notes have only covered DropBox, I'd have to check the Select Committee evidence first, and this is the first mention of a second back up system. The idea that doctors only kept local copies and backed-up to DropBox, Freeman didn't do this, and Sky weren't fully aware of this is out there but almost believable. It indicates a negligent, slap-dash attitude to documentation. The idea that Freeman wasn't backing up or logging records in two separate locations but was allowed to continue is not believable at all for me. Having a separate intranet with forms that should have been logged shows a much more rigorous approach, one that would require some IT management and as such it would likely have been noticed if someone wasn't using it. I'd be very interested to know if I've missed this being mentioned before.[/quote]


interesting letter from the Select Committee hearings; from SDB to Damian Collins MP, Chair, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, detailing the missing medical records, forms of record keeping (doctors notes, laptop, dropbox, but no intranet...) and also info on the jifffy bag contects being a form of fluimicil designed for use in a nebuliser...

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/combatting-doping-in-sport/written/48767.pdf
 
May 13, 2015
2,101
0
0
Wonder if he is going to take any risk at Ruta del Sol? Would be stupid to go full genius on the MTF right now. If he was smart, he would lose intentionally to prove he is human and clean & make people forget about his doping case.

According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, Froome's salbutamol case is heading to UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re:

WheelofGear said:
Wonder if he is going to take any risk at Ruta del Sol? Would be stupid to go full genius on the MTF right now. If he was smart, he would lose intentionally to prove he is human and clean & make people forget about his doping case.

According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, Froome's salbutamol case is heading to UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
i think that is highly unlikely, dont you?!
 
May 13, 2015
2,101
0
0
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
WheelofGear said:
Wonder if he is going to take any risk at Ruta del Sol? Would be stupid to go full genius on the MTF right now. If he was smart, he would lose intentionally to prove he is human and clean & make people forget about his doping case.

According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, Froome's salbutamol case is heading to UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
i think that is highly unlikely, dont you?!
It's still the best thing he can do right now.
 
May 13, 2015
2,101
0
0
Re: Re:

WheelofGear said:
53*11 said:
WheelofGear said:
Wonder if he is going to take any risk at Ruta del Sol? Would be stupid to go full genius on the MTF right now. If he was smart, he would lose intentionally to prove he is human and clean & make people forget about his doping case.

According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, Froome's salbutamol case is heading to UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
i think that is highly unlikely, dont you?!
It's still the best thing he can do right now.
Personally, I'd like to see another full genius in Andalucia.. but I really doubt it. It's worse than shooting yourself in the foot.
 
Re: Re:

WheelofGear said:
WheelofGear said:
53*11 said:
WheelofGear said:
Wonder if he is going to take any risk at Ruta del Sol? Would be stupid to go full genius on the MTF right now. If he was smart, he would lose intentionally to prove he is human and clean & make people forget about his doping case.

According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, Froome's salbutamol case is heading to UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
i think that is highly unlikely, dont you?!
It's still the best thing he can do right now.
Personally, I'd like to see another full genius in Andalucia.. but I really doubt it. It's worse than shooting yourself in the foot.
Because if he gets smashed you will get all the "lol Froome is no good without his inhaler" shouts.

He should ride for the win if he has the shape.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS