Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Eh? You expect him to tell everyone he's ill in the middle of a race? Who would do that?

So the jurnos who apparently see him on deaths door, almost on a ventolator if you beleive what he is saying, they wouldnt write that?

Aye you are correct, how silly of me.

'Today Froome looked good at the end of the stage, almost as if he had just walked into the breafast room ready for a day fishing'

:lol: :lol:

There was plenty of talk about him being ill. Here's Daniel Freibe asking him about the speculation that he's been ill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBT13_ELCM&t=54s

Nice find, glad i wasn't imagining it.....don't suppose we'll be seeing any retractions of the few posts above which have directly said this never happened

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Would you have a place where one could easily see the historical changes to the UCI regulations?

I do and I respectfully refer you to earlier comments about irony.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule.

Thank you for proving my point: you don't understand even the most basic rule here, a rule the UCI and race organisers fought long, hard and bitterly over.

And how does this support your contention that RCS, a private entity, can not apply THEIR own rules in regards to potentially disallowing Froome to compete?

 

[fmk_RoI]

There is no doctrine of precedence in sports law let alone a private organizations rules. Whatever that may have occurred with Valverde has no bearing on the Froome case.

We disagree Hog. I'm as surprise as you, really. And you said precedent (a wonderful barrack room lawyer term) I refer to the Valverde case on relevance.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule.

Thank you for proving my point: you don't understand even the most basic rule here, a rule the UCI and race organisers fought long, hard and bitterly over.

Sorry you got me there. I though you referred to the eligibility process as defined by IOC. Sorry about my bad english understanding.

Of course there are qualification rules, the complete chapter 1 of UCI regulations talks about licences to compete under UCI. Beginning of chapter 2 talks about the rights and regulation to attend and organize races.

I.e. there is indeed organizer right which says:

§ 5 Invitation – Enrolment
General principle
1.2.048 (N) Unless otherwise specified, the organiser is free to select any teams and riders for
an event, without any requirement to take account of any national protection.

I have to admit I haven't read the while UCI regulation so you got me there.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Would you have a place where one could easily see the historical changes to the UCI regulations?

I do and I respectfully refer you to earlier comments about irony.

Ok thanks. I'll keep searching. Would you know if the disrepute was indeed implemented after Valverde case or will you leave us all in darkness?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

I believe this is what FMK_RoI is driving at:

Participation of UCI WorldTeams
2.15.190 - UCI WorldTour events must accept the participation of all UCI WorldTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI WorldTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI WorldTour events registered on the UCI WorldTour calendar in 2016.

The Giro are allowed to invite the following:

- UCI WorldTeams (see Art. 2.15.127)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
- National team of the organising country in
events determined by the PCC

2.15.127 states:

Participation in events
The UCI WorldTeam must take part with a team of competitive riders in UCI WorldTour events.


As far as I can tell from the UCI regulations, The Giro must invite Sky and Sky can field any eligible rider. That would include Froome. If the Giro wanted to exclude Froome or Sky they would have to leave the WorldTour, and likely stop being a UCI governed race. This would mean no UCI registered athlete could compete at the Giro.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

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.

Really, Sam? Here’s what I heard:

When Moore asked Froome how he knew that other riders had gone through a similar situation and been exonerated, Froome said “quite a few riders” and other athletes had contacted him personally about this. But this is the same Froome who said the peloton was tremendously supportive of his riding the RdS, when other riders told a very different story. I repeat that the stats actually available at WADA don’t particularly support this claim. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that if another athlete tested at 2000 ng/ml and got off, this surely would have been discovered (because if all these athletes were willing to talk to Froome about this, they surely would have talked to others) and referred to by one of the preceding riders who exceeded the DL and didn't get off.

Froome concedes that “it is a much more complicated process than I initially thought”. That would not be the case if there were a reasonable explanation for the positive (or a precedent, such as another athlete with 2000 ng/ml who got off). He also repeats his confidence “that we are going to get to the bottom of this”. He said basically the same thing after the leak in December, so again, it does not appear from Froome’s own words that he has an explanation after all this time. I don’t know how to make this any clearer than I already have, but if he doesn’t have an explanation after all this time, he’s reduced to fantastical theories and technicalities. His insistence that no rules have been broken, as I explained quite a while ago, is essential in his all-or-nothing strategy.

He says that during the last week of the Vuelta “a lot of people” were asking him if he was sick, and that “people could recognize that I was having difficulty breathing”. Really? I don’t remember anyone reporting this at the time. And again, we know from his comments prior to the RdS that Froome has a history of saying vaguely that a lot of people support some point of his, when in fact digging a little deeper that does not seem to be the case. Not that it matters, since his condition at this point isn't relevant to his case, unless he were to argue he accidentally inhaled too much, which of course he has steadfastly denied, or that he took some other drug for his condition.

When asked about whether the case is going to the Tribunal, Froome says there has been “a lot of misinformation in the media” and that he isn’t going to try to address every story. But when the story about the deal being made for a short suspension broke, he immediately denied it, so the fact that he doesn’t deny that the case is going to the Tribunal is telling. This is particularly so given that, in his own words, the case still hasn’t “been sorted out” after five months. If he hasn't been able to convince LADS to this point, most likely it would go to CADF.

Indeed

If Froome and Brailsfraud are so confident Froome will skate why is it that only very recently Brailsfraud spoonfed the antibiotics line to Walsh. If they've got a golden ticket there's no need to drip feed increasingly tenuous "or maybe it was this" stories into the public domain

So most likely Froome and Brailsfraud are playing to the gallery with the usual PR BS. And why wouldn't they no matter how many lies they tell their Sky replica kit fanbase (trying to avoid using the F word ) keep lapping it up!

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

I believe this is what FMK_RoI is driving at:

Participation of UCI WorldTeams
2.15.190 - UCI WorldTour events must accept the participation of all UCI WorldTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI WorldTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI WorldTour events registered on the UCI WorldTour calendar in 2016.

The Giro are allowed to invite the following:

- UCI WorldTeams (see Art. 2.15.127)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
- National team of the organising country in
events determined by the PCC

2.15.127 states:

Participation in events
The UCI WorldTeam must take part with a team of competitive riders in UCI WorldTour events.


As far as I can tell from the UCI regulations, The Giro must invite Sky and Sky can field any eligible rider. That would include Froome. If the Giro wanted to exclude Froome or Sky they would have to leave the WorldTour, and likely stop being a UCI governed race. This would mean no UCI registered athlete could compete at the Giro.

Thanks, as I said already I got mixed up term eligibility in regards to the IOC vs Russia case.

The rule I copied earlier refers to "unless elsewhere regulated" which is indeed what you copied here.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

I believe this is what FMK_RoI is driving at:

Participation of UCI WorldTeams
2.15.190 - UCI WorldTour events must accept the participation of all UCI WorldTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI WorldTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI WorldTour events registered on the UCI WorldTour calendar in 2016.

The Giro are allowed to invite the following:

- UCI WorldTeams (see Art. 2.15.127)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
- National team of the organising country in
events determined by the PCC

2.15.127 states:

Participation in events
The UCI WorldTeam must take part with a team of competitive riders in UCI WorldTour events.


As far as I can tell from the UCI regulations, The Giro must invite Sky and Sky can field any eligible rider. That would include Froome. If the Giro wanted to exclude Froome or Sky they would have to leave the WorldTour, and likely stop being a UCI governed race. This would mean no UCI registered athlete could compete at the Giro.

Thanks, as I said already I got mixed up term eligibility in regards to the IOC vs Russia case.

The rule I copied earlier refers to "unless elsewhere regulated" which is indeed what you copied here.

No worries, UCI regulations (and sporting ones in general) are generally a nightmare to make head or tail of. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but that doesn't mean there isn't some regulation buried somewhere that negates everything I posted!

I seem to remember that I looked that section up before though when ASO were threatening to pull their events from the WT, so I'm fairly confident it's correct.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule.

Thank you for proving my point: you don't understand even the most basic rule here, a rule the UCI and race organisers fought long, hard and bitterly over.

And how does this support your contention that RCS, a private entity, can not apply THEIR own rules in regards to potentially disallowing Froome to compete?

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

I believe this is what FMK_RoI is driving at:

Participation of UCI WorldTeams
2.15.190 - UCI WorldTour events must accept the participation of all UCI WorldTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI WorldTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI WorldTour events registered on the UCI WorldTour calendar in 2016.

The Giro are allowed to invite the following:

- UCI WorldTeams (see Art. 2.15.127)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
- National team of the organising country in
events determined by the PCC

2.15.127 states:

Participation in events
The UCI WorldTeam must take part with a team of competitive riders in UCI WorldTour events.


As far as I can tell from the UCI regulations, The Giro must invite Sky and Sky can field any eligible rider. That would include Froome. If the Giro wanted to exclude Froome or Sky they would have to leave the WorldTour, and likely stop being a UCI governed race. This would mean no UCI registered athlete could compete at the Giro.

Thanks for posting this. However, what part of that says RCS must accept the roster of riders put forth by a team? It only says that they must accept the teams participation.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule.

Thank you for proving my point: you don't understand even the most basic rule here, a rule the UCI and race organisers fought long, hard and bitterly over.

And how does this support your contention that RCS, a private entity, can not apply THEIR own rules in regards to potentially disallowing Froome to compete?

There is none. Grand Tour organizers frequently disregard their own rules as do the UCI. Or more to the point they make their own interpretation and determination.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

[/quote]RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.[/quote]

Absolutely correct. Though I don't think it generically prevails 2.2.010bis. If it does, the whole 2.2.010bis is meaningless (for WT events) and should be removed completely.

 

[thehog]

There is no doctrine of precedence in sports law let alone a private organizations rules. Whatever that may have occurred with Valverde has no bearing on the Froome case.

We disagree Hog. I'm as surprise as you, really. And you said precedent (a wonderful barrack room lawyer term) I refer to the Valverde case on relevance.

You disagree and no need for surprise.

Precedence as well relevancy to previous cases has no bearing. A GT organizer can still do as they please with their own rule set. Relevancy to common law yes, here, no.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

I believe this is what FMK_RoI is driving at:

Participation of UCI WorldTeams
2.15.190 - UCI WorldTour events must accept the participation of all UCI WorldTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI WorldTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI WorldTour events registered on the UCI WorldTour calendar in 2016.

The Giro are allowed to invite the following:

- UCI WorldTeams (see Art. 2.15.127)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
- National team of the organising country in
events determined by the PCC

2.15.127 states:

Participation in events
The UCI WorldTeam must take part with a team of competitive riders in UCI WorldTour events.


As far as I can tell from the UCI regulations, The Giro must invite Sky and Sky can field any eligible rider. That would include Froome. If the Giro wanted to exclude Froome or Sky they would have to leave the WorldTour, and likely stop being a UCI governed race. This would mean no UCI registered athlete could compete at the Giro.

Thanks for posting this. However, what part of that says RCS must accept the roster of riders put forth by a team? It only says that they must accept the teams participation.

that would seem fairly circular logic. For example, if Sky present a team and RCS say no, they are effectively refusing to allow Sky to participate, which they can't do. If Sky fulfil the requirements placed on them as a WT team, and in this respect, specifically with regard to Froome, they are doing, then RCS can't reasonably stop them racing him. I'm sure there are a set of regulations that would govern this situation, including team requirements, rider requirements etc. if someone really wants to dig into the regulations. Based on what I've read I don't see any way for RCS to exclude Froome apart from 2.2.010bis, which has been heavily discussed.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

Absolutely correct. Though I don't think it generically prevails 2.2.010bis. If it does, the whole 2.2.010bis is meaningless (for WT events) and should be removed completely.

These kind of rules are fairly common I believe, it's the use of them that is important. Whichever side of the argument people fall on, it's hard to say that this applies in this case. Froome, so far, is free to race. I do agree that the chance for him to bring the race into disrepute is higher, if we interpret disrepute as reassigning results, but this could equally apply to certain sprinters, teams with a history of doing, riders with a history of offensive views etc. I honestly find it hard to believe the Giro would win that fight, but I do think they would have a case.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

Absolutely correct. Though I don't think it generically prevails 2.2.010bis. If it does, the whole 2.2.010bis is meaningless (for WT events) and should be removed completely.

These kind of rules are fairly common I believe, it's the use of them that is important. Whichever side of the argument people fall on, it's hard to say that this applies in this case. Froome, so far, is free to race. I do agree that the chance for him to bring the race into disrepute is higher, if we interpret disrepute as reassigning results, but this could equally apply to certain sprinters, teams with a history of doing, riders with a history of offensive views etc. I honestly find it hard to believe the Giro would win that fight, but I do think they would have a case.

I guess we will have to wait and see what RCS decides to do, but to say that RCS has no grounds to try and exclude Froome from racing if it comes to that point is simply incorrect. The UCI may very well change their own rules before they are forced to get involved though. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

Absolutely correct. Though I don't think it generically prevails 2.2.010bis. If it does, the whole 2.2.010bis is meaningless (for WT events) and should be removed completely.

These kind of rules are fairly common I believe, it's the use of them that is important. Whichever side of the argument people fall on, it's hard to say that this applies in this case. Froome, so far, is free to race. I do agree that the chance for him to bring the race into disrepute is higher, if we interpret disrepute as reassigning results, but this could equally apply to certain sprinters, teams with a history of doing, riders with a history of offensive views etc. I honestly find it hard to believe the Giro would win that fight, but I do think they would have a case.

I guess we will have to wait and see what RCS decides to do, but to say that RCS has no grounds to try and exclude Froome from racing if it comes to that point is simply incorrect. The UCI may very well change their own rules before they are forced to get involved though. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

The rules are often changed based on a case where a certain rule did not exist to execute desired ruling. I would like to know whether exactly that happened with 2.2.010bis in regards to Valverde case, but can't find information around it. That would obviously make Valverde more interesting in terms of relevance, in both anckles.

But there is no way UCI (or organizers) can change their rules to allow them prevent Froome racing in this situation, that would not hold any scrutiny.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule.

Thank you for proving my point: you don't understand even the most basic rule here, a rule the UCI and race organisers fought long, hard and bitterly over.

Sorry you got me there. I though you referred to the eligibility process as defined by IOC. Sorry about my bad english understanding.

Of course there are qualification rules, the complete chapter 1 of UCI regulations talks about licences to compete under UCI. Beginning of chapter 2 talks about the rights and regulation to attend and organize races.

I.e. there is indeed organizer right which says:

§ 5 Invitation – Enrolment
General principle
1.2.048 (N) Unless otherwise specified, the organiser is free to select any teams and riders for
an event, without any requirement to take account of any national protection.

I have to admit I haven't read the while UCI regulation so you got me there.

Still not getting it, keep trying, it's actually very simple...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

It amazes me that someone could not know that. Especially someone claiming knowledge of rules that would allow RCS to exclude Froome. This is sort of first principles stuff.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Would you have a place where one could easily see the historical changes to the UCI regulations?

I do and I respectfully refer you to earlier comments about irony.

Ok thanks. I'll keep searching. Would you know if the disrepute was indeed implemented after Valverde case or will you leave us all in darkness?

What?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

I believe this is what FMK_RoI is driving at:

Participation of UCI WorldTeams
2.15.190 - UCI WorldTour events must accept the participation of all UCI WorldTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI WorldTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI WorldTour events registered on the UCI WorldTour calendar in 2016.

The Giro are allowed to invite the following:

- UCI WorldTeams (see Art. 2.15.127)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
- National team of the organising country in
events determined by the PCC

2.15.127 states:

Participation in events
The UCI WorldTeam must take part with a team of competitive riders in UCI WorldTour events.


As far as I can tell from the UCI regulations, The Giro must invite Sky and Sky can field any eligible rider. That would include Froome. If the Giro wanted to exclude Froome or Sky they would have to leave the WorldTour, and likely stop being a UCI governed race. This would mean no UCI registered athlete could compete at the Giro.

And what I have been patiently trying to get Bambino to work out for themself is that these eligibility rules are nothing like those relied on recently by the IOC rendering reference to that case irrelevant.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

It amazes me that someone could not know that. Especially someone claiming knowledge of rules that would allow RCS to exclude Froome. This is sort of first principles stuff.

Please show us the language that explicitly​ states that RCS has no right to attempt to implement 2.2.01 bis, simply because it is a WT event. That would prove you correct once and for all. Should be easy and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

RCS are bound by the World Tour regulations they agreed to when they applied for WT status for the Giro. They are required to invite all WT teams and have no control over who those teams bring.

Absolutely correct. Though I don't think it generically prevails 2.2.010bis. If it does, the whole 2.2.010bis is meaningless (for WT events) and should be removed completely.

Your problem here Bambino is that you are confused on the difference between eligibility (for which you fatuously cited the IOC case) and disrepute (which you simply don't understand).

Mods: could we please have a rule that says if you're going to edit the HTML quote tags, you do it right and not render posts difficult to read?