Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1131 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
You are the one wanting to throw away the rule book. The answer to your question is YES.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
give that man a prize, thats the most daft, laughable, inane comment of the day for me (and there was stiff competition!) thanks sam :razz:
 
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
Decision by RCS to give a wildcard team an invitation to the Giro in 2018, after the events of 2017 is staggering - RCS should not have given Bardiani a wildcard for the next three editions.
 
He didn't sound like any banned rider i've ever heard interviewed before who thinks he's innocent 53*11. Moore was even suggesting the case isn't going to UCI Anti-doping Tribunal, but couldn't say more. Froome confirmed the story in La Gazetta about the case is at UCI Tribunal was incorrect too. Make of that what you will.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
fmk_RoI said:
53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
surely the self proclaimed saviours of cycling would therefore be boycotting the Giro then on that basis...not...eh...taking the money ;)
I don't think The Clinic does boycotts...
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
You are the one wanting to throw away the rule book. The answer to your question is YES.
Ok, let's get circular: what rule am I seeking to throw away? Chapter and verse, please...
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
yaco said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
Decision by RCS to give a wildcard team an invitation to the Giro in 2018, after the events of 2017 is staggering - RCS should not have given Bardiani a wildcard for the next three editions.
What does this have to do with Froome? Please explain. Your argument about Bardiani, standing alone from Froome is pretty solid. The two just aren't connected.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
You are the one wanting to throw away the rule book. The answer to your question is YES.
Ok, let's get circular: what rule am I seeking to throw away? Chapter and verse, please...
At least you admit the objective of your "arguing". Mods, can you please declare Fmk's interpretation of the rules correct and close the thread. It is becoming a complete joke.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
You are the one wanting to throw away the rule book. The answer to your question is YES.
Ok, let's get circular: what rule am I seeking to throw away? Chapter and verse, please...
At least you admit the objective of your "arguing". Mods, can you please declare Fmk's interpretation of the rules correct and close the thread. It is becoming a complete joke.
Is that you withdrawing your baseless and frankly insulting claim that I seek to throw the rule book away Spetsa?
 
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
I'll be completely shocked if that happens. I don't believe it for 1 second.
 
Re:

spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?
 
CF in yesterday's friendly fire podcast https://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/the-ruta-del-sol
(skip to 13m15s and dodge the Rapha ads)
It's not the first time that I have had issues like that [at the Vuelta]
come towards the end of a Grand Tour: my body on the limit
my immune system a little low - that's my Achilles heal.
I never heard that line before.
Is this a bit of a confession?
Did the previous excesses get a Cookson white card?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?
Bit lame from you being the one who started the insults against spetsa.

Calm down.

I did read the rule and explained how I read the rules for possibility to ban rider. Spetsa agreed on my reading. You said it is wishful thinking, but no explanation why.

Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.

And I won't link my message to you. Go and find it. I don't like helping people that starts the spiral of insults.
 
spetsa said:
yaco said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
Decision by RCS to give a wildcard team an invitation to the Giro in 2018, after the events of 2017 is staggering - RCS should not have given Bardiani a wildcard for the next three editions.
What does this have to do with Froome? Please explain. Your argument about Bardiani, standing alone from Froome is pretty solid. The two just aren't connected.
Wow - Have you being reading the last few pages of the thread - It's been discussing the validity and morality of RCS refusing to issue Froome an invitation to the GIRO, because it's a 'bad look for the sport.'
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
yaco said:
spetsa said:
yaco said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
Decision by RCS to give a wildcard team an invitation to the Giro in 2018, after the events of 2017 is staggering - RCS should not have given Bardiani a wildcard for the next three editions.
What does this have to do with Froome? Please explain. Your argument about Bardiani, standing alone from Froome is pretty solid. The two just aren't connected.
Wow - Have you being reading the last few pages of the thread - It's been discussing the validity and morality of RCS refusing to issue Froome an invitation to the GIRO, because it's a 'bad look for the sport.'
Does Bardiani have any riders currently involved in a doping investigation that they are threatening to enter into the Giro? If you are going to apply your logic, any team with a rider who tested positive last year should be excluded from the race. Is that what you are advocating for? No BMC?
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.
I've already explained it to you once, across several posts, explaining specifically why disrepute will not fly and showing how it couldn't fly in the Valverde case. You seem to be ignoring the explanation.

And next time try not body-shaming me by passing comment on my anckles.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?
As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.
 
53*11 said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
give that man a prize, thats the most daft, laughable, inane comment of the day for me (and there was stiff competition!) thanks sam :razz:
Why is it daft, laughable or indeed inane for Sam to think that in a ĺittle over 2 months time the case will be over and Froome will be cleared. :confused:

Of course he's just guessing and voicing an opinion, I'm guessing it's a different opinion to yours, but one shared by many others.

BTW.....being cleared doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent. That's entirely different.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.
I've already explained it to you once, across several posts, explaining specifically why disrepute will not fly and showing how it couldn't fly in the Valverde case. You seem to be ignoring the explanation.

And next time try not body-shaming me by passing comment on my anckles.
You are probably able to summarize it somehow because I don't remember any of you messages explaining clearly why I read the rules wrong. You just speculate why disrepute wouldn't work. You asked for the rules, explain why my interpetation of the rule is factually incorrect.

You are rocking to ask people to explain and prove, but I don't really see explanations or proof from you, just bullying around the topic.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.
I've already explained it to you once, across several posts, explaining specifically why disrepute will not fly and showing how it couldn't fly in the Valverde case. You seem to be ignoring the explanation.

And next time try not body-shaming me by passing comment on my anckles.
No, you've explained it to yourself in your own head. Please try to explain it to us, in relation to the language used by those who wrote the rules. We will wait patiently.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?
As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.
viewtopic.php?p=2219568#p2219568

viewtopic.php?p=2219892#p2219892
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?
As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.
viewtopic.php?p=2219568#p2219568

viewtopic.php?p=2219892#p2219892
Your first link and message I commented back and explained why I see the rules differently. You responded it is wishful thinking, but haven't explained why and why is my interpetation of rule incorrect. So try again.

Valverde document is in French where I'm even worse than in english. Would you mind to provide english version (I think it is even forum rule)?
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?
As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.
viewtopic.php?p=2219568#p2219568

viewtopic.php?p=2219892#p2219892
Your first link and message I commented back and explained why I see the rules differently. You responded it is wishful thinking, but haven't explained why and why is my interpetation of rule incorrect. So try again.

Valverde document is in French where I'm even worse than in english. Would you mind to provide english version (I think it is even forum rule)?
I explained in part. You have ignored that.

In accordance with the rules of the forum I provided a translation of the relevant passages of the Valverde judgement.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY