Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1129 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Froome has brought the Giro into disrepute, now he’s back to do it again :cool:

Team Sky’s Chris Froome ended his Giro d’Italia today after the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) communicated it disqualified him for holding onto motorbike during the 19th stage to Aprica.
 
Re:

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...
Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
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.
I think this is likely to be correct

The UCI's rules about excluding riders from races, and the related precedents set by organisers, are separate from the contractual arrangement between RCS and Froome/Sky relating to the $2m appearance fee

And if Froome/Sky entered into the appearance fee contract in bad faith (i.e. they failed to disclose the AAF) then Froome/Sky must now be in breach of that contract and RCS would presumably be able to terminate it and exclude Froome (and possibly Sky?) from the race

In that context it's odd that RCS's public stance is to put the onus on the UCI to hold them harmless. RCS need to stop whinging and grow a pair!
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Merckx index said:
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.
Bear in mind that racing while stringing out the legal proceedings is almost certainly a deliberate ploy by Froome's legal team (and would have been even if the AAF hadn't been made public)

The more he races the greater pressure on the UCI to find a way to settle the AAF in his favour
 
Re: Re:

bambino 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...
Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
bambino 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...
Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino 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...
Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
I reckon you’d give the foot washing religious right a run for their money in regards to faith.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino 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...
Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
I reckon you’d give the foot washing religious right a run for their money in regards to faith.
WTF has that to do with this thread :confused:
OFF TOPIC or what.
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
I reckon you’d give the foot washing religious right a run for their money in regards to faith.
WTF has that to do with this thread :confused:
OFF TOPIC or what.
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino 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...
Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
I suggest you read the relevant literature and work out the difference between what Froom is accused of and the media brouhaha that we are witnessing.
 
Here's my guess...and it is just a guess, wrt all this speculation about what race organisers will and will not do when it comes to trying to bar Froome from their events.....not a damn thing! They will continue to milk the situation for all its worth, cash in on the hype, speculation and interest to keep their events in the spotlight, to keep people talking about them more so than they usually would. Release the odd piece about their 'concerns', more to keep their events on the media platforms than anything else.

But in the end, they'll be more than happy to see Froome at the event, and the whole circus that's following him around this year.

Same goes for the sponsors.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Guess I must be imagining all those drawn football games and cricket matches. Silly me...
Aaaawww how cute of you being smart :redface:

Don't you think that normally even those games are part of competition, i.e. series? Friendly matches are not competition. I think you are being a bit silly :p
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Guess I must be imagining all those drawn football games and cricket matches. Silly me...
Aaaawww how cute of you being smart :redface:
Oops, I did it again. Now I hadn't realised smarts - the ability to think - was frowned upon. I'll book my lobotomy tomorrow...
 
Alpe73 said:
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Guess I must be imagining all those drawn football games and cricket matches. Silly me...
Aaaawww how cute of you being smart :redface:
Oops, I did it again. Now I hadn't realised smarts - the ability to think - was frowned upon. I'll book my lobotomy tomorrow...
Just the right pills on the morning, just the right pills. And no, this time I won't give sitation. :D
 
Some assistance please, as I'm struggling.

Over here we have a rule that says if we catch you doping, we can strip you of victories.

Over here, we have a crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming that stripping someone of victory brings disrepute upon a race.

So are we to not apply that rule we have? Is there to be a doping hall pass - we'll let you do it, but only if you win? Isn't that what so many believe Verbruggen and McQuaid did during those years we dare not think of anymore? Are we now to believe they done right?

But, the pitchfork wielding crowd say, we can diminish the damage of not applying that rule by going for a hallucinatory reimagining of the disrepute rule and placing some crazy emphasis on the word might. We can stop you riding, the crowd says, if you might pop a positive and so might bring disrepute upon our glorious, untarnished enterprise.

My problem here though, is this: if Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your emodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibilty they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone - EVERYONE! - dopes. So that embodiment of purity, following the fatuous argument of the torch bearers, has to be pre-emptively banned. Cause (get this) might is right. In which case, whither cycling with dumb assed thinking like that, who's to ride our races, with dumb assed thinking like that? Answer: you, you and you, cause we like you. For now.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Some assistance please, as I'm struggling.

Over here we have a rule that says if we catch you doping, we can strip you of victories.

Over here, we have a crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming that stripping someone of victory brings disrepute upon a race.

So are we to not apply that rule we have? Is there to be a doping hall pass - we'll let you do it, but only if you win? Isn't that what so many believe Verbruggen and McQuaid did during those years we dare not think of anymore? Are we now to believe they done right?

But, the pitchfork wielding crowd say, we can diminish the damage of not applying that rule by going for a hallucinatory reimagining of the disrepute rule and placing some crazy emphasis on the word might. We can stop you riding, the crowd says, if you might pop a positive and so might bring disrepute upon our glorious, untarnished enterprise.

My problem here though, is this: if Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your emodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibilty they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone - EVERYONE! - dopes. So that embodiment of purity, following the fatuous argument of the torch bearers, has to be pre-emptively banned. Cause (get this) might is right. In which case, whither cycling with dumb assed thinking like that, who's to ride our races, with dumb assed thinking like that? Answer: you, you and you, cause we like you. For now.
Did you forget the minor fact that Froome already has, not might, test positive.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping
LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
Some assistance please, as I'm struggling.

Over here we have a rule that says if we catch you doping, we can strip you of victories.

Over here, we have a crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming that stripping someone of victory brings disrepute upon a race.

So are we to not apply that rule we have? Is there to be a doping hall pass - we'll let you do it, but only if you win? Isn't that what so many believe Verbruggen and McQuaid did during those years we dare not think of anymore? Are we now to believe they done right?

But, the pitchfork wielding crowd say, we can diminish the damage of not applying that rule by going for a hallucinatory reimagining of the disrepute rule and placing some crazy emphasis on the word might. We can stop you riding, the crowd says, if you might pop a positive and so might bring disrepute upon our glorious, untarnished enterprise.

My problem here though, is this: if Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your emodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibilty they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone - EVERYONE! - dopes. So that embodiment of purity, following the fatuous argument of the torch bearers, has to be pre-emptively banned. Cause (get this) might is right. In which case, whither cycling with dumb assed thinking like that, who's to ride our races, with dumb assed thinking like that? Answer: you, you and you, cause we like you. For now.
Did you forget the minor fact that Froome already has, not might, test positive.
Delivered AAF with Salbutamol over the limit and thus under investigation whether tested positive or not. That is important correction and there I actually am with Froome defenders.

BUT - given the situation, there is significantly higher chance that Froome might disrepute the sport and the race than Jesus Christ, Buddha or Gandhi, unless those happy chaps are also under investigation of doping violation.

I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that we are, with flaming torches, saying that the race organizers should select the drivers they ike most, because that is not at all what at least I'm saying.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping
LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.
Well a few things. One, this is simply the first example of a sponsor pulling out I could find in 2 seconds. There are many. Two, yes, they pulled out because of the optics around doping, not because they didn't know or cared about doping. They simply determined it was bad for business and left. They cared about doping scandals, not doping. Obviously.

The idea that somehow people are denying that doping scandals have hurt cycling just blows my mind. How does someone get to this place? What level of ignorance of what's happened and denial can we really achieve here?

Just amazing.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
fmk_RoI said:
red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping
LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.
Well a few things. One, this is simply the first example of a sponsor pulling out I could find in 2 seconds. There are many. Two, yes, they pulled out because of the optics around doping, not because they didn't know or cared about doping. They simply determined it was bad for business and left. They cared about doping scandals, not doping. Obviously.

The idea that somehow people are denying that doping scandals have hurt cycling just blows my mind. How does someone get to this place? What level of ignorance of what's happened and denial can we really achieve here?

Just amazing.
It seems as though there are 2 members who have a goal of posting complete nonsense in response to every post, hoping that they simply discourage anyone from being interested in participating in the forum. I thought that was trolling.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
fmk_RoI said:
red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping
LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.
Well a few things. One, this is simply the first example of a sponsor pulling out I could find in 2 seconds. There are many. Two, yes, they pulled out because of the optics around doping, not because they didn't know or cared about doping. They simply determined it was bad for business and left. They cared about doping scandals, not doping. Obviously.

The idea that somehow people are denying that doping scandals have hurt cycling just blows my mind. How does someone get to this place? What level of ignorance of what's happened and denial can we really achieve here?

Just amazing.
Indeed. The 2nd biggest country in Europe agrees with you. How many years was it that German t/v refused to cover the TDF. 4?
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Indeed. The 2nd biggest country in Europe agrees with you. How many years was it that German t/v refused to cover the TDF. 4?
Exactly. No damage there, move along! :lol:

spetsa said:
It seems as though there are 2 members who have a goal of posting complete nonsense in response to every post, hoping that they simply discourage anyone from being interested in participating in the forum. I thought that was trolling.
Well I can't speak to intent, but reading the posts I responded to did make me mentally throw up my hands a bit. Had the "what's the point of discussion if such things are actually being debated" moment. Certainly we're unlikely to get to any salient points when people are debating simple facts, long since understood by anyone and everyone following the sport.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY