Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bambino]

Re: Re:

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.

That I agree and that was the reason of CAS first decicion to free up the athletes from doping charges. However IOC still banned those athletes from Olympics using their organizer right. That second decision was again appealed to CAS by Russians which decided IOC has the right, as the organizer of the competition, to decide who gets to compete in their games and who not. So athletes who were freed-up by CAS from doping charges due to lack of physical evidence were still not allowed to compete.

I'm not arguing the doping charges being different in these cases, I'm just saying there is CAS precedent that organizer of the competition has the right to decide who gets to compete and who not.

 

[Escarabajo]

Hasn't the Tour the France banned teams with members with no positives? similar to happened to the Russians at the Olympics.

Wasn't Astana banned in 2008? maybe my memory is failing and somebody can attest to it!

 

[SHAD0W93]

Re:

Hasn't the Tour the France banned teams with members with no positives? similar to happened to the Russians at the Olympics.

Wasn't Astana banned in 2008? maybe my memory is failing and somebody can attest to it!

Yes, Astana was banned in 2008 from Vino and Kash's positive in 07 tour causing Contador, Levi, and Kloden to ride the Giro and Vuelta. And Astana withdrew everyone from the race in 2007 after the positive.

 

[Robert5091]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/18/chris-froome-struggles-backdrop-failed-test

Team Sky were the only team at this usually low-key race to bring a bodyguard with them, a burly Frenchman they have been using on a contract basis since the Tour de France last year. He man-marked Froome throughout the five-day event. Fortunately, he was not required to deal with any abuse from spectators like the cup of urine thrown on the Briton at the Tour de France in 2015.

 

[rick james]

I've seen his body guard at a lot of races, he's easy to spot....Rather sad that a person fears for his safety at a bike race

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

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.

Tuttobici now raising this possibility for T-A:

If for real--as rumored in a few parts and as claimed a few hours ago by Beppe Conti in his Indiscrete Radiocorsa--the organizers of the Grand Tours are considering banning Chris Froome from their races, the first chance to do so will be Tirreno-Adriatico.

They go on to cite UCI Article 2.2.

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/2018/02/17/109101/caso-froome-ora-tocca-agli-organizzatori-uci-regolamento-tuttobiciweb

 

[The Hitch]

That guardian bodyguard story sounds so similar to how Cathy Newman and channel 4 news tried to manufacture sympathy last month by claiming they contacted the police and were thinking of hiring protection.
This was after she performed one of the most disgraceful "interviews" imaginable, cosing up to former harvard professor Jordan peterson, then heel turning on him during the interview and attempting to twist every word he said to provoke him and to misportray him as some sort of irrational nazi.

After he remained calm and respectfully corrected her on every attempted mischaractarization the interview went viral exposing her reprehensible behaviour to millions as one of the best examples out there of a calm individual triumphing over a bully.

To save face c4 released the police story, even though no evidence has been shown that there were any actual threats and there has been no further story in the month since then. The analysis suggests peterson actually got significantly more hate than she did. It was clearly a cry for sympathy and an attempt to change the narrative.

Of course the very next day the very same guardian newspaper as above printed a (very similar) article about how a "controversial" professor's fans had been abusing poor Cathy, placing her as the victim, saving media face.

Seems to be the same thing Db is doing. And has been for years. From the genesis of the "throw piss" story for which there was no evidence, to his very similar claim in 2015 that sky's files were hacked, in a pathetic attempt to distract from how they proved tucker and Co right. Fran Millar claiming she was contacting police during a tdf mountain stage to protect frooomie from loony fans.

Scumbags certainly know how to use this trick.

 

[MartinGT]

Sad that he feels he needs a bodyguard. But the bodyguard aint gonna be any use during the race is he?!

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/18/chris-froome-struggles-backdrop-failed-test

Team Sky were the only team at this usually low-key race to bring a bodyguard with them, a burly Frenchman they have been using on a contract basis since the Tour de France last year. He man-marked Froome throughout the five-day event. Fortunately, he was not required to deal with any abuse from spectators like the cup of urine thrown on the Briton at the Tour de France in 2015.

'alleged' gets lost and it becomes part of the folklore.....our poor hapless hero

 

[yaco]

Think Froome better soon organise a date at the CAS - He could be at CAS on more than one occasion - Of course the UCI needs to support the race organisers or it has no legs.

 

[bambino]

Re:

Think Froome better soon organise a date at the CAS - He could be at CAS on more than one occasion - Of course the UCI needs to support the race organisers or it has no legs.

I don't think CAS works by a way to pre-book dates. I guess one needs a decision to appeal against.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

If for real--as rumored in a few parts and as claimed a few hours ago by Beppe Conti in his Indiscrete Radiocorsa--the organizers of the Grand Tours are considering banning Chris Froome from their races, the first chance to do so will be Tirreno-Adriatico.

They go on to cite UCI Article 2.2.

The Radiocorsa show was mentioned in the thread above by TourOfSardinia and summarized by me - I don't really believe that the race organizers will invoke the "seriously blemishes the image" clause, because Froome has been technically operating within the rules, pending the outcome of his ADT case. I guess it's at the discretion of RCS, and it seems tempting for them to kick Froome out of Tirreno-Adriatico, to preempt the issue if Froome is not already banned by the UCI before the Giro. But, the definition is vague as to what it means to blemish the sport or the race.

TourOfSardinia pointed out that the journos in Italy are becoming increasingly hostile to Froome. And indeed, I saw some articles whose Italian titles translate as hyperbolic warnings: "UCI has Froome With His Back To The Wall", or "The Document That Makes Froome Tremble In Fear". Think it's a sensationalist rumor that won't happen at Tirreno-Adriatico, but what do I really know, nothing

RCS would have their work cut out excluding Froome on some sort of moral basis when they invited Bardiani back after their two positives last year. And is he more image blemishing that taking the race off to Israel?

In reality RCS are just worried about his results being stripped. Someone just needs to get them to chat to a sports lawyer to reassure them. That fact that this process is supposed to be confidential would work in Froome's favour.

As for the Italian journalists - it's just their usual sensationalism.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

If for real--as rumored in a few parts and as claimed a few hours ago by Beppe Conti in his Indiscrete Radiocorsa--the organizers of the Grand Tours are considering banning Chris Froome from their races, the first chance to do so will be Tirreno-Adriatico.

They go on to cite UCI Article 2.2.

The Radiocorsa show was mentioned in the thread above by TourOfSardinia and summarized by me - I don't really believe that the race organizers will invoke the "seriously blemishes the image" clause, because Froome has been technically operating within the rules, pending the outcome of his ADT case. I guess it's at the discretion of RCS, and it seems tempting for them to kick Froome out of Tirreno-Adriatico, to preempt the issue if Froome is not already banned by the UCI before the Giro. But, the definition is vague as to what it means to blemish the sport or the race.

TourOfSardinia pointed out that the journos in Italy are becoming increasingly hostile to Froome. And indeed, I saw some articles whose Italian titles translate as hyperbolic warnings: "UCI has Froome With His Back To The Wall", or "The Document That Makes Froome Tremble In Fear". Think it's a sensationalist rumor that won't happen at Tirreno-Adriatico, but what do I really know, nothing

RCS would have their work cut out excluding Froome on some sort of moral basis when they invited Bardiani back after their two positives last year. And is he more image blemishing that taking the race off to Israel?

In reality RCS are just worried about his results being stripped. Someone just needs to get them to chat to a sports lawyer to reassure them. That fact that this process is supposed to be confidential would work in Froome's favour.

As for the Italian journalists - it's just their usual sensationalism.

I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

If for real--as rumored in a few parts and as claimed a few hours ago by Beppe Conti in his Indiscrete Radiocorsa--the organizers of the Grand Tours are considering banning Chris Froome from their races, the first chance to do so will be Tirreno-Adriatico.

They go on to cite UCI Article 2.2.

The Radiocorsa show was mentioned in the thread above by TourOfSardinia and summarized by me - I don't really believe that the race organizers will invoke the "seriously blemishes the image" clause, because Froome has been technically operating within the rules, pending the outcome of his ADT case. I guess it's at the discretion of RCS, and it seems tempting for them to kick Froome out of Tirreno-Adriatico, to preempt the issue if Froome is not already banned by the UCI before the Giro. But, the definition is vague as to what it means to blemish the sport or the race.

TourOfSardinia pointed out that the journos in Italy are becoming increasingly hostile to Froome. And indeed, I saw some articles whose Italian titles translate as hyperbolic warnings: "UCI has Froome With His Back To The Wall", or "The Document That Makes Froome Tremble In Fear". Think it's a sensationalist rumor that won't happen at Tirreno-Adriatico, but what do I really know, nothing

RCS would have their work cut out excluding Froome on some sort of moral basis when they invited Bardiani back after their two positives last year. And is he more image blemishing that taking the race off to Israel?

In reality RCS are just worried about his results being stripped. Someone just needs to get them to chat to a sports lawyer to reassure them. That fact that this process is supposed to be confidential would work in Froome's favour.

As for the Italian journalists - it's just their usual sensationalism.

I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.

RCS have Froome over a barrel. The fact that Froome concealed his doping positive to induce RCS into a $2m appearance fee and contract will allow them to do as they please. Participation is separated but Froome has already given them enough scope to rightfully bar him from the race.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.

I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Hasn't the Tour the France banned teams with members with no positives? similar to happened to the Russians at the Olympics.

Wasn't Astana banned in 2008? maybe my memory is failing and somebody can attest to it!

Yes, Astana was banned in 2008 from Vino and Kash's positive in 07 tour causing Contador, Levi, and Kloden to ride the Giro and Vuelta. And Astana withdrew everyone from the race in 2007 after the positive.

Thanks!
So there is a precedent!

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Hasn't the Tour the France banned teams with members with no positives? similar to happened to the Russians at the Olympics.

Wasn't Astana banned in 2008? maybe my memory is failing and somebody can attest to it!

Yes, Astana was banned in 2008 from Vino and Kash's positive in 07 tour causing Contador, Levi, and Kloden to ride the Giro and Vuelta. And Astana withdrew everyone from the race in 2007 after the positive.

Thanks!
So there is a precedent!

very interesting! was this for prohibited substances though?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Hasn't the Tour the France banned teams with members with no positives? similar to happened to the Russians at the Olympics.

Wasn't Astana banned in 2008? maybe my memory is failing and somebody can attest to it!

Yes, Astana was banned in 2008 from Vino and Kash's positive in 07 tour causing Contador, Levi, and Kloden to ride the Giro and Vuelta. And Astana withdrew everyone from the race in 2007 after the positive.

Thanks!
So there is a precedent!

Although that happened in the middle of a power struggle between the UCI and ASO where the Tour and other races had withdrawn from the ProTour.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.

I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

Maybe there isn't recent precedent. But does that guarantee Froome won't be stripped? Would you bet all-in that it doesn't happen? That is propably the level of comfort RCS wants.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.

I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

Maybe there isn't recent precedent. But does that guarantee Froome won't be stripped? Would you bet all-in that it doesn't happen? That is propably the level of comfort RCS wants.

RCS can go and consult legal experts. I'm fairly sure they'll get the same answer over and over again - that results won't be stripped.

 

[DanielSong39]

The solution seems pretty simple: give up a couple of Grand Tours, serve a suspension, come back in this year's Vuelta, and become one of the most adored and sympathetic figures in the peloton. It's the Contador way!

Let's see if Froome is smart enough to figure this out.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.

I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

Maybe there isn't recent precedent. But does that guarantee Froome won't be stripped? Would you bet all-in that it doesn't happen? That is propably the level of comfort RCS wants.

RCS can go and consult legal experts. I'm fairly sure they'll get the same answer over and over again - that results won't be stripped.

You have the right word there - ”consult”. Those experts will take no firm stance, they just consult. That is why Vegni is asking UCI to guarantee. Which they won’t and can’t. So the risk remains on RCS with 2m$ extra at stake. Even 10% propability of that risk to materialize is significant enough to think twice.

Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

The solution seems pretty simple: give up a couple of Grand Tours, serve a suspension, come back in this year's Vuelta, and become one of the most adored and sympathetic figures in the peloton. It's the Contador way!

Let's see if Froome is smart enough to figure this out.

Contador had flair....can you see the problem with your suggestion?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.

I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.

I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.