Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[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.

Yep. This is aligned with my view.

 

[fmk_RoI]

To those who think the Valverde case is irrelevant as it maps imperfectly to the Froome case, deals with serenity instead of disrepute, and sure anyway the Lance Corporal in my barracks said there's no such thing as precedent, so we can just ignore all case law: pay attention to the point KingBoonen made about it being "used in a good few defences if a quick Google search is anything to go by." Also heed it's role in the Osaka Rule 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.

Yep. This is aligned with my view.

King Boonen, in one post you claim RCS has no say in who teams invite due to the races WT status. In the next post you say although success is unlikely, RCS could attempt to exclude Froome, and in fact they have a case.

 

[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.

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.

What I have actually said is that "were this to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or the Chambre, I think it's pretty obvious what the decision would be." But don't let truth get in your way. And don't take my word for this. Here's RCS's Mauro Vegni offering expert opinion on the subject:

I can’t stop him [Froome] because otherwise I’d be infringing on his right to race.

You've chosen to ignore my requests to explain the basis of your disagreement with me, maybe you'll be kind enough to enlighten us on why you think Vegni is in error. TIA.

 

[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.

What I have actually said is that "were this to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or the Chambre, I think it's pretty obvious what the decision would be." But don't let truth get in your way. And don't take my word for this. Here's RCS's Mauro Vegni offering expert opinion on the subject:

I can’t stop him [Froome] because otherwise I’d be infringing on his right to race.

You've chosen to ignore my requests to explain the basis of your disagreement with me, maybe you'll be kind enough to enlighten us on why you think Vegni is in error. TIA.

Actually you have just agreed with me. The outcome is up for debate. The possibility of RCS attempting Froome's exclusion exists. I have never said what the outcome of RCS's attempt may be, just their right to attempt exclusion if they were to choose that route exists. I'm done.

 

[thehog]

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.

Yep. This is aligned with my view.

King Boonen, in one post you claim RCS has no say in who teams invite due to the races WT status. In the next post you say although success is unlikely, RCS could attempt to exclude Froome, and in fact they have a case.

No one has case bar RCS, as Froome has likely infringed on a civil tort of concealing his positive test from RCS. You cannot mislead to induce into contract nor withhold material information as Froome did. If there is a legal challenge within the courts and even at CAS Froome has no chance under principles of tort outlined.

This however pertains to the payment and less inclusion. Although one might be a penalty for the other.

 

[Alpe73]

I empathize with a race organizer’s anxiety in regards to ensuring, as best as he/she can, that the race is successful in all regards. I fully expect that Giro race organizers will allow Froome to race, even if his case is not decided (although they’d prefer both a decision and exoneration) ASAP. After all, they’ve got an event and a business to run. So the premise that the Giro has the same zeal for excluding Froome as does a significant cohort of the Clinic, just doesn’t wash.

That some fans would act in a way to to harm Froome (exonerated or still in limbo) is weighing far more on the minds of organizers in regards to bringing the Giro into disrepute. Just my opinion of course.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Actually you have just agreed with me.

I've just agreed with you? Spetsa, I made that comment a month ago. You have spent most of the last 24 hours claiming you disagree with me. Wise up.

 

[Rollthedice]

Vegni has every right to TRY to ban Froome from racing the Giro or even Tirreno which is the first RCS WT race Froome cheerfully plans to ride. He has in the "regolamento" the right to stop a rider or a team from participating under a similar formulation as under UCI regulations 2.2.010 bis. Let Froome run to CAS, let's see what's happening.

 

[bambino]

I empathize with a race organizer’s anxiety in regards to ensuring, as best as he/she can, that the race is successful in all regards. I fully expect that Giro race organizers will allow Froome to race, even if his case is not decided (although they’d prefer both a decision and exoneration) ASAP. After all, they’ve got an event and a business to run. So the premise that the Giro has the same zeal for excluding Froome as does a significant cohort of the Clinic, just doesn’t wash.

That some fans would act in a way to to harm Froome (exonerated or still in limbo) is weighing far more on the minds of organizers in regards to bringing the Giro into disrepute. Just my opinion of course.

I'm actually in agreement with you on this!! Ensuring physical safety will be very important measurement of proceeding. Even with Ian Stannard racing as someone suggested.

 

[bambino]

Re:

Vegni has every right to TRY to ban Froome from racing the Giro or even Tirreno which is the first RCS WT race Froome cheerfully plans to ride. He has in the "regolamento" the right to stop a rider or a team from participating under a similar formulation as under UCI regulations 2.2.010 bis. Let Froome run to CAS, let's see what's happening.

I doubt Vegni will do that for Tirreno. If he decides to do it, he will save it for Giro and possibly announce it very close before the start so that there isn't enough time for CAS to turn it around before the start of the race. At the end Giro is the race where he has (according to rumours) the failure of Froome disclosing the AAF when signing 2m$ appearance fee in his backpocket.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Vegni has every right to TRY to ban Froome from racing the Giro or even Tirreno which is the first RCS WT race Froome cheerfully plans to ride. He has in the "regolamento" the right to stop a rider or a team from participating under a similar formulation as under UCI regulations 2.2.010 bis. Let Froome run to CAS, let's see what's happening.

I doubt Vegni will do that for Tirreno. If he decides to do it, he will save it for Giro and possibly announce it very close before the start so that there isn't enough time for CAS to turn it around before the start of the race. At the end Giro is the race where he has (according to rumours) the failure of Froome disclosing the AAF when signing 2m$ appearance fee in his backpocket.

Edit: And yeah to be absolutely fair and accurate on the rules (that we have been debating), according to 2.2.010bis, it is not only Vegni's decision. This is what the rule actual says:

"The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated."

Without reference to a copy of the rules (I'm on a mobile) reference to commissaires suggests more confusion on your part and this is the part of the disrepute clause that refers to in race incidents such as the one that saw Sagan fined €300 in 2016 or so.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

Actually you have just agreed with me.

I've just agreed with you? Spetsa, I made that comment a month ago. You have spent most of the last 24 hours claiming you disagree with me. Wise up.

Wise up! More personal attacks. Suprise, suprise.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Vegni has every right to TRY to ban Froome from racing the Giro or even Tirreno which is the first RCS WT race Froome cheerfully plans to ride. He has in the "regolamento" the right to stop a rider or a team from participating under a similar formulation as under UCI regulations 2.2.010 bis. Let Froome run to CAS, let's see what's happening.

I doubt Vegni will do that for Tirreno. If he decides to do it, he will save it for Giro and possibly announce it very close before the start so that there isn't enough time for CAS to turn it around before the start of the race. At the end Giro is the race where he has (according to rumours) the failure of Froome disclosing the AAF when signing 2m$ appearance fee in his backpocket.

Edit: And yeah to be absolutely fair and accurate on the rules (that we have been debating), according to 2.2.010bis, it is not only Vegni's decision. This is what the rule actual says:

"The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated."

Without reference to a copy of the rules (I'm on a mobile) reference to commissaires suggests more confusion on your part and this is the part of the disrepute clause that refers to in race incidents such as the one that saw Sagan fined €300 in 2016 or so.

Sorry indeed you are right. Modified accordingly.

 

[Alpe73]

I empathize with a race organizer’s anxiety in regards to ensuring, as best as he/she can, that the race is successful in all regards. I fully expect that Giro race organizers will allow Froome to race, even if his case is not decided (although they’d prefer both a decision and exoneration) ASAP. After all, they’ve got an event and a business to run. So the premise that the Giro has the same zeal for excluding Froome as does a significant cohort of the Clinic, just doesn’t wash.

That some fans would act in a way to to harm Froome (exonerated or still in limbo) is weighing far more on the minds of organizers in regards to bringing the Giro into disrepute. Just my opinion of course.

I'm actually in agreement with you on this!! Ensuring physical safety will be very important measurement of proceeding. Even with Ian Stannard racing as someone suggested.

Yes, of course.

And let's hope that some nut job (father, mother, sister, brother, son, daugter) does not committ assault, injure Froome, get himself/herself arrested and charged ... and ... by such sick behavior ... bring the Giro into real disrepute.

 

[fasthill]

Re: Re:

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.

You seem to not understand some basic legal as well as logical concepts.

Legal: rules, laws, and regulations do not have to spell out and address every possible situation that may arise and codify every possible solution to every possible problem. This is impossible to do. Which is where implications come in.

Solutions and conclusions can be inferred or implied from statements and propositions.

For example, if the rule states that a race organizer must invite every WT team to the race, it is implied that the organizer has no right to stop a WT rider from participating unless you specifically give that right.

In principle, you're asking to show you a rule that forbids Fords to go over a speed limit when all vehicles should stay under a speed limit regardless of brand, color, and so on.

Logic: you're asking to prove a negative. In principle, you're asking to prove that aliens do not exist, or God does not exist. This too is impossible to do.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

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.

You seem to not understand some basic legal as well as logical concepts.

Legal: rules, laws, and regulations do not have to spell out and address every possible situation that may arise and codify every possible solution to every possible problem. This is impossible to do. Which is where implications come in.

Solutions and conclusions can be inferred or implied from statements and propositions.

For example, if the rule states that a race organizer must invite every WT team to the race, it is implied that the organizer has no right to stop a WT rider from participating unless you specifically give that right.

In principle, you're asking to show you a rule that forbids Fords to go over a speed limit when all vehicles should stay under a speed limit regardless of brand, color, and so on.

Logic: you're asking to prove a negative. In principle, you're asking to prove that aliens do not exist, or God does not exist. This too is impossible to do.

Thanks for the semantic nonsense. Nice try.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

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.

You seem to not understand some basic legal as well as logical concepts.

Legal: rules, laws, and regulations do not have to spell out and address every possible situation that may arise and codify every possible solution to every possible problem. This is impossible to do. Which is where implications come in.

Solutions and conclusions can be inferred or implied from statements and propositions.

For example, if the rule states that a race organizer must invite every WT team to the race, it is implied that the organizer has no right to stop a WT rider from participating unless you specifically give that right.

In principle, you're asking to show you a rule that forbids Fords to go over a speed limit when all vehicles should stay under a speed limit regardless of brand, color, and so on.

Logic: you're asking to prove a negative. In principle, you're asking to prove that aliens do not exist, or God does not exist. This too is impossible to do.

Thanks for the semantic nonsense. Nice try.

I have no real concerns about RCS' right ( or not) to try to prevent Froome from attending the Giro. But why would they want to do that? (if case is still undecided)

"Disrepute" ... meh. I think that some posters really do think that Vegni would like to stick Froome as much as they would. Just can't see it.

Froome vs Dumoulin is "show me the $" ... and $ trumps any romantic, naive idea about disrepute ... 7 days a week.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

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.

You seem to not understand some basic legal as well as logical concepts.

Legal: rules, laws, and regulations do not have to spell out and address every possible situation that may arise and codify every possible solution to every possible problem. This is impossible to do. Which is where implications come in.

Solutions and conclusions can be inferred or implied from statements and propositions.

For example, if the rule states that a race organizer must invite every WT team to the race, it is implied that the organizer has no right to stop a WT rider from participating unless you specifically give that right.

In principle, you're asking to show you a rule that forbids Fords to go over a speed limit when all vehicles should stay under a speed limit regardless of brand, color, and so on.

Logic: you're asking to prove a negative. In principle, you're asking to prove that aliens do not exist, or God does not exist. This too is impossible to do.

Thanks for the semantic nonsense. Nice try.

I have no real concerns about RCS' right ( or not) to try to prevent Froome from attending the Giro. But why would they want to do that? (if case is still undecided)

"Disrepute" ... meh. I think that some posters really do think that Vegni would like to stick Froome as much as they would. Just can't see it.

Froome vs Dumoulin is "show me the $" ... and $ trumps any romantic, naive idea about disrepute ... 7 days a week.

Completely agree. To take Vegni's latest comment on the situation as gospel is crazy also. It may be sport but they are politicians that will say anything in the moment and change in the next. Do you think that Vegni would alienate a huge percentage of potential viewers 4 months before his event? That's right, he did and then changed his tune. We won't know what he really thinks until 48 hours before the start. That decision will be based on $

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

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.

You seem to not understand some basic legal as well as logical concepts.

Legal: rules, laws, and regulations do not have to spell out and address every possible situation that may arise and codify every possible solution to every possible problem. This is impossible to do. Which is where implications come in.

Solutions and conclusions can be inferred or implied from statements and propositions.

For example, if the rule states that a race organizer must invite every WT team to the race, it is implied that the organizer has no right to stop a WT rider from participating unless you specifically give that right.

In principle, you're asking to show you a rule that forbids Fords to go over a speed limit when all vehicles should stay under a speed limit regardless of brand, color, and so on.

Logic: you're asking to prove a negative. In principle, you're asking to prove that aliens do not exist, or God does not exist. This too is impossible to do.

Thanks for the semantic nonsense. Nice try.

I have no real concerns about RCS' right ( or not) to try to prevent Froome from attending the Giro. But why would they want to do that? (if case is still undecided)

"Disrepute" ... meh. I think that some posters really do think that Vegni would like to stick Froome as much as they would. Just can't see it.

Froome vs Dumoulin is "show me the $" ... and $ trumps any romantic, naive idea about disrepute ... 7 days a week.

Completely agree. To take Vegni's latest comment on the situation as gospel is crazy also. It may be sport but they are politicians that will say anything in the moment and change in the next. Do you think that Vegni would alienate a huge percentage of potential viewers 4 months before his event? That's right, he did and then changed his tune. We won't know what he really thinks until 48 hours before the start. That decision will be based on $

I'm with you (and Alpe73). I think we all start to agree there is a case for RCS to decline his participation, but it will be hard and their motives to do so are questionable.

Money will be a factor - the immediate publicity is another - will/could Froome's case change the results afterwards is another - ability to guarantee physical safety is yet another - will they decide based on "ethics" or "business - and the list goes on and on...

Maybe... just maybe, the reason why Vegni turned 180 degrees already on his public statements about the situation, could mean that Froome has already given up (or discounted) the appearance fee based on the AAF proceeding he didn't disclose to RCS at the time of the agreement to race. With a promise that Vegni won't ban him from the race in case the investigation is still open. Maybe Vegni is already clapping his hands together for all time best financial result of the Giro. Vegni is not stupid although some here suggest otherwise, thus there could very well be politics and smuggling we don't know that changed his view so rapidly.

TDF with ASO is of course whole different discussion.

 

[brownbobby]

The oft quoted 'guarantee of safety'.........I do kind of get the sentiment, but when, in the history of sport have event organisers ever been able to 'guarantee' the participants safety?

 

[Robert5091]

Maybe it'll come down to will the Israelis (who've put up a lot of money for race) want a rider with a doping ban hanging over him participating? People will not be talking of "history, heritage, “magical views” and holy sites" but Froome's urine.

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re:

Maybe... just maybe, the reason why Vegni turned 360 degrees already on his public statements about the situation...

He's back on his original opinion?

 

[bambino]

Re:

The oft quoted 'guarantee of safety'.........I do kind of get the sentiment, but when, in the history of sport have event organisers ever been able to 'guarantee' the participants safety?

It is not possible fully I agree even in normal situations, but this is not normal situation and the risk level is ought to be somewhat higher given Froome is not, even as a basis, the most popular character in the peloton for the Italians (and French equally). That piece is equally important to Froome himself, as for RCS, to consider of course.

 

[gillan1969]

The Giro killed the GT career of that other skinny no hope GC-er that became super-dominant...we can live in hope that, like the 'transformation' history repeats itself...