• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1123 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
rick james said:
the full climb please, let’s see if you can pull the magic 60% number from that
You're insane? <-- is that ten characters?

You can continue with the condescension and trying to belittle anyone who sees through your 'science' as long as you want John, I see a regular pattern there.

Fact is, any one rider being 60% faster than any other over (a small portion of) a 19 second clip at which time he's launched a max power attack to drop a rival is.....normal.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
rick james said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
rick james said:
how dare you try and deny the made up evidence just to try and keep the agenda going

Sorry. My bad :redface:

Dude went 60% faster than one of the world's best climbers, on one of the wrold's most famous climbs. Deal.

John Swanson
On a 19 second video lol
How many seconds do you want?

How about a few more than the c2.5 secs for which froome is visible?!
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
rick james said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
rick james said:
how dare you try and deny the made up evidence just to try and keep the agenda going

Sorry. My bad :redface:

Dude went 60% faster than one of the world's best climbers, on one of the wrold's most famous climbs. Deal.

John Swanson
On a 19 second video lol
How many seconds do you want?

Mr. Zapreuder .... from where you were standing, from where you were filming ... can you please confirm ... that Dawg went fecking extraterrestrial .... when he attacked on a big, muthafeckin 18-22% muthafeckin ramp!?!

Mr. Zapreuder ... please ... :lol:
 
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.
 
UCI regulations

2.2.010 bis

Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence
holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of
cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.

The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires
panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the
organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling
Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road
commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.
The licence holder or the team must be heard.

If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the
president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from
the president of the commissaires panel.

Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes
obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn

Special provisions applicable to road events:

The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a
team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or
reputation of the organiser or of the event.

If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision
taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of
Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.

However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the
Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1
avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cédex 13).
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
ferryman said:
rick james said:
Eh it’s the Union flag not a Union Jack
There's no difference ***. If you were Scottish you would know that.
lol. do you do much sailing do you
O.T. pedant or what Rick?
Let a Cdr OBE RN (no less) contradict you:
https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/
It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”.

Cdr Bruce Nicolls OBE RN (Retd)
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
rick james said:
ferryman said:
rick james said:
Eh it’s the Union flag not a Union Jack
There's no difference ***. If you were Scottish you would know that.
lol. do you do much sailing do you
O.T. pedant or what Rick?
Let a Cdr OBE RN (no less) contradict you:
https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/
It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”.

Cdr Bruce Nicolls OBE RN (Retd)

Staunch as hell, the Unuion jack flys from a shop and thats it
 
Re:

yaco said:
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.

CAS actually made interesting precedent for the Olympics in case of Russians. IOC has a rule they can decline athletes from Olympics. CAS couldn't go around that although earlier they ruled no doping violation for same athletes.

I doubt CAS would be able to legally rule against race organizers if they ban Froome.
 
MartinGT said:
rick james said:
MartinGT said:
Will be interesting how the Dawg goes in todays TT
really? why is that?what do you expect it to show us? something we don't already know?

so many questions, so little time

See where he is at, seems like he is way off the pace which considering the past seasons thats not like him......

Bold guess... this is his real level without using anything else...

Nah, but all of this has obviously affected him mentally and his build-up for the season. Seems to me this just been a practice run. Show his face in the peloton without stirring to many things up. Ease into it.

Still hope he gets the ban he should get though and I would not be sad if he doesnt win again, but I am not his biggest supporter either :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
yaco said:
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.

CAS actually made interesting precedent for the Olympics in case of Russians. IOC has a rule they can decline athletes from Olympics. CAS couldn't go around that although earlier they ruled no doping violation for same athletes.

I doubt CAS would be able to legally rule against race organizers if they ban Froome.

I posted the excerpt from UCI regulations which allows under certain circumstances the organizers to ban a rider from participating. The organizers also have rules that state the same thing. Time to show some balls and do it. Interesting is that for Tour De France the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport which is a French organization, I can imagine that if Prudhomme really wants Froome banned the Chambre Arbitrale will not rule against it.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
bambino said:
yaco said:
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.

CAS actually made interesting precedent for the Olympics in case of Russians. IOC has a rule they can decline athletes from Olympics. CAS couldn't go around that although earlier they ruled no doping violation for same athletes.

I doubt CAS would be able to legally rule against race organizers if they ban Froome.

I posted the excerpt from UCI regulations which allows under certain circumstances the organizers to ban a rider from participating. The organizers also have rules that state the same thing. Time to show some balls and do it. Interesting is that for Tour De France the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport which is a French organization, I can imagine that if Prudhomme really wants Froome banned the Chambre Arbitrale will not rule against it.

I'm sure though the Chambre Arbitrale is not the last resort and the rider can still go to CAS after that.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome was probably not really going for the win Ruta del Sol, he just kept a lower profile and let Poels contend for the general classification. Which almost worked, only 8 seconds between Poels and Wellens !
Poels also looks physically freakish in a manner similar to Froome, they may be closely-related species in the evolutionary tree :

They feared he might lose the kidney but salvaged it. "I had really bad injuries,” Poels adds. “I had a problem with my kidney and my left kidney has a little piece off now."
http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/22854/9686341/wout-poels
Froome. Ruta del Sol. Low profile.

Eh. I'm not sure how to put those words together in a coherent sentence. j/k I agree that this is a race that is not a major season goal. He rode. He went well. Now he has race miles in the legs.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
yaco said:
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.

CAS actually made interesting precedent for the Olympics in case of Russians. IOC has a rule they can decline athletes from Olympics. CAS couldn't go around that although earlier they ruled no doping violation for same athletes.

I doubt CAS would be able to legally rule against race organizers if they ban Froome.

You are comparing apples with oranges - The IOC banned the group of Russian athletes who then appealed to CAS who upheld the Russian athletes decision - CAS effectively stated you couldn't lump every athlete together because each had individual cases, so effectively stated the athletes couldn't be sanctioned on the basis of doping - The IOC then decided to appeal which then sent it back to a CAS but more importantly framed their appeal on the basis of eligibility - Now the difference with the potential Froome situation is it would be race organisers who seek to ban Froome and not the UCI.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bambino said:
yaco said:
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.

CAS actually made interesting precedent for the Olympics in case of Russians. IOC has a rule they can decline athletes from Olympics. CAS couldn't go around that although earlier they ruled no doping violation for same athletes.

I doubt CAS would be able to legally rule against race organizers if they ban Froome.

You are comparing apples with oranges - The IOC banned the group of Russian athletes who then appealed to CAS who upheld the Russian athletes decision - CAS effectively stated you couldn't lump every athlete together because each had individual cases, so effectively stated the athletes couldn't be sanctioned on the basis of doping - The IOC then decided to appeal which then sent it back to a CAS but more importantly framed their appeal on the basis of eligibility - Now the difference with the potential Froome situation is it would be race organisers who seek to ban Froome and not the UCI.

Ehh... no. IOC was "dissapointed" of the decision of CAS which reversed IOC's decision to ban the athletes for life (and take off their medals) from Olympics due to being part of state led doping. IOC hasn't appeald that decision (yet) as far as I know, because the only place to do that is Swiss Court, not CAS anymore. However IOC informed the Russian atheletes in the list are not welcome to Korea and they have right to decline their participation as the organizers of the competition.

The declined atheletes appeald IOC's decision of not allowing them to compete to CAS emergency tribunal within Korea games, which decided IOC has legal ground to decide who gets to compete and who not. The CAS decision said that CAS cannot decide who gets to compete in Olympics, it is the right of IOC as organizer.

UCI/race organizer vs. IOC does not really matter, IOC is organizer of Olympic games as much as i.e. ASO is organizer of Tour de France.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
yaco said:
Froome will run to CAS as soon as any race organiser stops him starting a race - And he will probably win the case - The only possible way Froome could be banned by the organisers is if they can't guarantee his safety, which is some chance in the TDF.

CAS actually made interesting precedent for the Olympics in case of Russians. IOC has a rule they can decline athletes from Olympics. CAS couldn't go around that although earlier they ruled no doping violation for same athletes.

I doubt CAS would be able to legally rule against race organizers if they ban Froome.

You are comparing apples with oranges - The IOC banned the group of Russian athletes who then appealed to CAS who upheld the Russian athletes decision - CAS effectively stated you couldn't lump every athlete together because each had individual cases, so effectively stated the athletes couldn't be sanctioned on the basis of doping - The IOC then decided to appeal which then sent it back to a CAS but more importantly framed their appeal on the basis of eligibility - Now the difference with the potential Froome situation is it would be race organisers who seek to ban Froome and not the UCI.

Ehh... no. IOC was "dissapointed" of the decision of CAS which reversed IOC's decision to ban the athletes for life (and take off their medals) from Olympics due to being part of state led doping. IOC hasn't appeald that decision (yet) as far as I know, because the only place to do that is Swiss Court, not CAS anymore. However IOC informed the Russian atheletes in the list are not welcome to Korea and they have right to decline their participation as the organizers of the competition.

The declined atheletes appeald IOC's decision of not allowing them to compete to CAS emergency tribunal within Korea games, which decided IOC has legal ground to decide who gets to compete and who not.

UCI/race organizer vs. IOC does not really matter, IOC is organizer of Olympic games as much as i.e. ASO is organizer of Tour de France.


The point being the lack of physical evidence for the Russians as individuals to sanction them. In Froome’s case he has a postive urine test.