Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1128 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.
Good post.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
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.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
 
Re: Re:

Bronstein said:
[

Despite Mr. Petacchi waiving his right to have his B sample analysed, the anti-doping proceedings have progressed rather slowly. UPA-CONI filed its appeal with CAS on 23 August 2007. Normally CAS would issue its award within about four months (120 days) from the date on which the appeal is filed, which would have been 20 December 2007 at the latest. Due to certain delays in the hearing process which were not attributable to Mr. Petacchi, the hearing did not take place until 2 April 2008.

However, the Panel is satisfied that in a case of this type the hearing would have taken place and the award would have been issued well within the 4 month period. The Panel is satisfied that, all things being equal, arrangements would have been made for an early hearing so that the award would have been issued by 1 November 2007.

In the circumstances, therefore, the Panel considers that fairness requires that the period of ineligibility should start on 1 November 2007 and expire on 31 August 2008.
Again, because the proceedings in Froome's case haven't concluded, no one can really say whether there have been or will be delays that are not attributable to Froome. It is possible that there may be such delays, which may result in some of Froome's results being stripped.
But such a backdating would only be done on application by the athlete. It's not done automatically. Petacchi didn't lose any major wins so he was happy to do it. Froome isn't going to throw away major results. If he crashes out of the Giro with a broken collarbone then different story.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.
Good post.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground.
Some important context: a partial list of races that have had their reputation 'ruined' by having to rewrite the results:

Tour de France 1904
Tour de France 1999
Tour de France 2000
Tour de France 2001
Tour de France 2002
Tour de France 2003
Tour de France 2004
Tour de France 2005
Tour de France 2006
Tour de France 2010

Giro d'Italia 2011

Vuelta a España 1982
Vuelta a España 2005

Il Lombardia 1907
Il Lombardia 1930
Il Lombardia 1969
Il Lombardia 1973

Milan-Sanremo 1915

Paris-Roubaix 1934

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1974
Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1981

It's gonna be a tough claim to make stick, even before you consider RCS's own role and reputation...
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground.
Some important context: a partial list of races that have had their reputation 'ruined' by having to rewrite the results:

Tour de France 1904
Tour de France 1999
Tour de France 2000
Tour de France 2001
Tour de France 2002
Tour de France 2003
Tour de France 2004
Tour de France 2005
Tour de France 2006
Tour de France 2010

Giro d'Italia 2011

Vuelta a España 1982
Vuelta a España 2005

Il Lombardia 1907
Il Lombardia 1930
Il Lombardia 1969
Il Lombardia 1973

Milan-Sanremo 1915

Paris-Roubaix 1934

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1974
Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1981

It's gonna be a tough claim to make stick, even before you consider RCS's own role and reputation...
Actually, you just supported RCS reasoning. Hasn't happened since 2011 and they are not going to let it happen again. Froome better find a way to get cleared before May, or he will not be racing.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground.
Some important context: a partial list of races that have had their reputation 'ruined' by having to rewrite the results:

Tour de France 1904
Tour de France 1999
Tour de France 2000
Tour de France 2001
Tour de France 2002
Tour de France 2003
Tour de France 2004
Tour de France 2005
Tour de France 2006
Tour de France 2010

Giro d'Italia 2011

Vuelta a España 1982
Vuelta a España 2005

Il Lombardia 1907
Il Lombardia 1930
Il Lombardia 1969
Il Lombardia 1973

Milan-Sanremo 1915

Paris-Roubaix 1934

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1974
Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1981

It's gonna be a tough claim to make stick, even before you consider RCS's own role and reputation...
Actually, you just supported RCS reasoning. Hasn't happened since 2011 and they are not going to let it happen again. Froome better find a way to get cleared before May, or he will not be racing.
Daftest logic I've heard today...and today's been a doozy for daftness...
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
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.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
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.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.
Ignoring facts such as these is daft.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
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.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
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.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.
Ignoring facts such as these is daft.
"Disrepute" ... it's a perception held my the public. Its impact is calculated by measurable 'damage.'

Taking into consideration ... manipulation by the media ... such as in this thread ... what's your ballpark calculation/figure, Spetsa, of 'damage to be done' via any of the several outcomes of his case ... as it relates to Frrome's participation in the Giro?

Thanks, in advance.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.
Good post.
Bad Post
 
Bambino - if you bothered to read the actual ruling by which the IOC blocked those Russians you would see immediately why it is not relevant here.

Your whole argument is based on wishful thinking, not the rules, not the relevant case law. It would be better for the sport if people stopped making such specious arguments.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
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.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.
Ignoring facts such as these is daft.
"Disrepute" ... it's a perception held my the public. Its impact is calculated by measurable 'damage.'

Taking into consideration ... manipulation by the media ... such as in this thread ... what's your ballpark calculation/figure, Spetsa, of 'damage to be done' via any of the several outcomes of his case ... as it relates to Frrome's participation in the Giro?

Thanks, in advance.
My calculation is not important. Neither is yours. Your welcome
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
Alpe73 said:
spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
"Disrepute" ... it's a perception held my the public. Its impact is calculated by measurable 'damage.'

Taking into consideration ... manipulation by the media ... such as in this thread ... what's your ballpark calculation/figure, Spetsa, of 'damage to be done' via any of the several outcomes of his case ... as it relates to Frrome's participation in the Giro?

Thanks, in advance.
My calculation is not important. Neither is yours. Your welcome
Then, neither is your street cred in regards to commenting on this tiny sub thread, bro. ;)
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

[quoterl=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2226183#p2226183]spetsa[/url]"]
Alpe73 said:
spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
"Disrepute" ... it's a perception held my the public. Its impact is calculated by measurable 'damage.'

Taking into consideration ... manipulation by the media ... such as in this thread ... what's your ballpark calculation/figure, Spetsa, of 'damage to be done' via any of the several outcomes of his case ... as it relates to Frrome's participation in the Giro?

Thanks, in advance.
My calculation is not important. Neither is yours. Your welcome
[/quote]

Then, neither is your street cred in regards to commenting on this tiny sub thread, bro. ;)[/quote]

Street cred? Really. Are you 12 years old? I am fine remaining outside of your culture. Have a great day.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...
I think he did irreparable damage to a company that was previously famous for its employees going on gun killing sprees.
I stand ... corrected. :redface:
Nominating that one ... for an Oscar ... seriously. :lol:
 
It’s too late now, but imagine if this scenario had occurred:

Upon learning of the B sample confirmation of the A sample positive in early October last fall, Froome does three things:

a) makes a public announcement of this fact
b) provisionally suspends himself
c) requests that his case go directly to CAS, and be resolved within six months

The first step commits himself to transparency; no accusations that he’s trying to get this positive swept under the rug by a compliant UCI. The second step removes any possibility of racing under uncertainty whether the results will count, and also ensures that if there is a ban, it will begin with the positive, much of it covering a period when he’s inactive, anyway. And the third step is the only possible option that ensures that if he rides the Giro and/or Tour, the results will count, without the possibility of an appeal that changes everything.

Given that any decision by CADF was likely to be appealed to CAS, anyway, I don’t see why any of the parties involved would have objected, and given Froome’s importance to racing, and that none of the parties involved wanted to see him riding before the case was resolved, there would have been an effort to settle this as quickly as possible. In fact, as pointed out upthread in the discussion of the Petacchi case, CAS can normally reach a decision within four months of an appeal, so it wouldn’t have been difficult to settle this well before the Giro. If the decision was a ban, Froome would have served much of it by then, and might have been able to ride the Giro or at least the Tour. And if the ban was so long that he couldn’t, well, there would have been no reason to think it would have been any different if he had gone through the LADS/CADF process.

So why didn’t Froome do this? Because he clung to the hope that he could persuade LADS to exonerate him, and wanted time to try. But he could have spent a month or two exploring the options, and still had time to appeal to CAS. The fact is that salbutamol cases have been around for a long time, and all the possible ways of explaining a level above threshold have been tried, and generally failed. It shouldn’t have taken him long to realize that he was very unlikely to convince LADS, and even if he was certain he could, the same arguments that worked for them should have worked for CAS.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY