Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1130 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Robert5091 said:
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
 
Re:

yaco said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
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
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Merckx index said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Merckx index said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Merckx index said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
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)
 
Re: Re:

SHAD0W93 said:
Escarabajo said:
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!
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
SHAD0W93 said:
Escarabajo said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
SHAD0W93 said:
Escarabajo said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
 
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.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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.
 
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
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? ;)
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
yaco said:
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.
You have taken my post literally - It means as soon as race organisers/UCI withdraw Froome's invitation to race, then his lawyer will be at CAS faster than you can blink.
 
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.
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.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
bambino said:
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)
The current WADA code is no different to the 2003 version with respect to results being stripped.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bambino said:
yaco said:
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.
You have taken my post literally- It means as soon as race organisers/UCI withdraw Froome's invitation to race, then his lawyer will be at CAS faster than you can blink.
Or maybe your radar for sarcasm had malfunction.
 
Re: Re:

Bronstein said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
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)
The current WADA code is no different to the 2003 version with respect to results being stripped.
Maybe not, but as a precedent it will have been overtaken by more recent cases. Petacchi's case was odd anyway - there seems to be no logic in when his ban ran and what results he did and didn't lose. The results he lost were due to the ban being backdated - I think the grounds for that are probably different now. And, like Contador, it was an appeal case where he had originally been cleared.

Even so, the Petacchi case would still support the idea that Froome would keep his results. The ruling:

The following decisions have been pronounced by the CAS:

- the period of ineligibility of Alessandro Petacchi shall start on 1 November 2007 and shall come to end on 31 August 2008;

- all competitive results obtained by Alessandro Petacchi during the 2007 Giro d'Italia shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

- Alessandro Petacchi can retain all other competitive results between 23 May 2007 and 31 October 2007, but all competitive results obtained after 31 October 2007 and during the period of ineligibility will be disqualified.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS