Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Bronstein]

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Yeah it's Froome's wishful thinking, he has a bad advisers on this.
He thinks his results between Vuelta 2017 and the day of his verdict will stand: "I think that's what the rules state".
Yet he also thinks that rules allow him to race, and that any other rider in his position previously had raced! :surprised:
I don't know if he's playing dumb, or he is just dumb!
Petacchi and Ulissi both were unofficially suspended by their teams, both didn't raced during their investigations, and both got reduced bans (9 and 10 months respectively). UCI obviously played major role in their silent bans (during investigation), as they obviously tried to do with Sky/Froome. But when they didn't get any positive response, of course they will go public, to justify their future actions (which is I think to prevent him riding Tour de France).

I don't see how you can claim Froome doesn't know the rules, then also claim that the UCI subverted their rules to ban Ulissi and Petacchi.

Oh he know the rules, but he interprets them in a way that suits him. Rules allow him to race, that's true. But it is also quite clear that UCI pressured Lampre and Milram to withdrew their riders from racing (base upon no rule though..). Sky and Froome won't play this game, so the outcome may be quite different.
What I'm trying to say is that Froome is refering to some cases when it goes into his favor (no backdated bans), but leaves out all relevant facts that preceded them (probable agreement between UCI and the teams).

The problem here is you are conflating the voluntary removal of two riders by their teams with the rules. They may have removed them due to pressure from the UCI, but that's not the rules. The official line is they were suspended by the team. Whether that was the teams choice or not doesn't really matter. Froome's interpretation of the rules is correct. Agreements between teams and the UCI don't change the rules.

He's certainly wrong about others racing, although I think he was probably meaning people who were in this position and the process was kept confidential.

 

[Parker]

Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Point 3 on pages 12-13 seems the pertinent one. Froome can easily argue that his results have not been effected by the amount of salbutamol he took on that day in September seeing as he's taken plenty of it since quite legally. It is also implicit in rules which allow him to continue racing.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Great find! Thanks so much. I've long wondered what the fairness clause means. I skimmed through the article, and it confirms what I had thought all along, that it's up to the particular judge or panel to decide what fairness allows or doesn't allow. So I really don't think Froome can say with confidence that any ban will not include the period beginning with his positive, unless his case has advanced so far that, as I mentioned upthread, he's bargaining over the timing.

Name me one example where a rider tested positive during a race, was found guilty, but was allowed to keep his victories.

That's not what Froome is saying. Of course if he's sanctioned he will lose the Vuelta. The issue is if he's sanctioned after the Giro or, unlikely, after the Tour, can he keep his results in those races. Precedent, and the rules, indicate it's certainly possible, though by no means certain based on what we know so far of the case.

Point 3 on pages 12-13 seems the pertinent one. Froome can easily argue that his results have not been effected by the amount of salbutamol he took on that day in September seeing as he's taken plenty of it since quite legally. It is also implicit in rules which allow him to continue racing.

Well, yes, but Contador could have made a similar argument, as he was tested constantly while riding prior to the CAS decision.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Yeah it's Froome's wishful thinking, he has a bad advisers on this.
He thinks his results between Vuelta 2017 and the day of his verdict will stand: "I think that's what the rules state".
Yet he also thinks that rules allow him to race, and that any other rider in his position previously had raced! :surprised:
I don't know if he's playing dumb, or he is just dumb!
Petacchi and Ulissi both were unofficially suspended by their teams, both didn't raced during their investigations, and both got reduced bans (9 and 10 months respectively). UCI obviously played major role in their silent bans (during investigation), as they obviously tried to do with Sky/Froome. But when they didn't get any positive response, of course they will go public, to justify their future actions (which is I think to prevent him riding Tour de France).

I don't see how you can claim Froome doesn't know the rules, then also claim that the UCI subverted their rules to ban Ulissi and Petacchi.

Oh he know the rules, but he interprets them in a way that suits him. Rules allow him to race, that's true. But it is also quite clear that UCI pressured Lampre and Milram to withdrew their riders from racing (base upon no rule though..). Sky and Froome won't play this game, so the outcome may be quite different.
What I'm trying to say is that Froome is refering to some cases when it goes into his favor (no backdated bans), but leaves out all relevant facts that preceded them (probable agreement between UCI and the teams).

The problem here is you are conflating the voluntary removal of two riders by their teams with the rules. They may have removed them due to pressure from the UCI, but that's not the rules. The official line is they were suspended by the team. Whether that was the teams choice or not doesn't really matter. Froome's interpretation of the rules is correct. Agreements between teams and the UCI don't change the rules.

He's certainly wrong about others racing, although I think he was probably meaning people who were in this position and the process was kept confidential.

But I think it does really matter. I think that's where the key lies in this case. Lampre and Milram cooperated, hence they got reduced bans. Sky didn't. We'll see where it will take them... In fact I think that's why the whole thing leaked (and I have no doubts that UCI leaked the whole thing). Processes of other mentioned riders were confidential because of cooperation with UCI imo. Sky didn't want that, so we got the show now.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

But I think it does really matter. I think that's where the key lies in this case. Lampre and Milram cooperated, hence they got reduced bans. Sky didn't. We'll see where it will take them... In fact I think that's why the whole thing leaked (and I have no doubts that UCI leaked the whole thing). Processes of other mentioned riders were confidential because of cooperation with UCI imo. Sky didn't want that, so we got the show now.

If that's really the case then the biggest problem here would be the UCI as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Froome:
“I’m obviously doing everything I can to get this resolved as quickly as possible, and just trying to keep my head down.”

If he keeps his head down all the way through TA and then the Giro
I can live with that.
If he goes alien that's quite different and disrespectful to Sky, the UCI the Peloton.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Great find! Thanks so much. I've long wondered what the fairness clause means. I skimmed through the article, and it confirms what I had thought all along, that it's up to the particular judge or panel to decide what fairness allows or doesn't allow. So I really don't think Froome can say with confidence that any ban will not include the period beginning with his positive, unless his case has advanced so far that, as I mentioned upthread, he's bargaining over the timing.

The fact that he is allowed to continue racing would seem to be a very strong indication that his participation and results are considered 'fair', wouldn't you say? You would have a hard time arguing that it was unfair.

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Point 3 on pages 12-13 seems the pertinent one. Froome can easily argue that his results have not been effected by the amount of salbutamol he took on that day in September seeing as he's taken plenty of it since quite legally. It is also implicit in rules which allow him to continue racing.

So is 1, 2 and 4. 1 and 2 are unknown at this time, so I don't know how any lawyer could confidently give advice on this issue.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Yeah it's Froome's wishful thinking, he has a bad advisers on this.
He thinks his results between Vuelta 2017 and the day of his verdict will stand: "I think that's what the rules state".
Yet he also thinks that rules allow him to race, and that any other rider in his position previously had raced! :surprised:
I don't know if he's playing dumb, or he is just dumb!

Do you really think that you know more about the anti-doping laws than one of the world's leading lawyers in the field?

i thought the backdating of a ban was alrteady thrashed out here many pages back and the consensus was that if he cant explain the result and gets an ADRV, his ban is backdated to the date he was popped/glowing, thereby putting at risk any results he gains while riding in the intervening period?

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

But I think it does really matter. I think that's where the key lies in this case. Lampre and Milram cooperated, hence they got reduced bans. Sky didn't. We'll see where it will take them... In fact I think that's why the whole thing leaked (and I have no doubts that UCI leaked the whole thing). Processes of other mentioned riders were confidential because of cooperation with UCI imo. Sky didn't want that, so we got the show now.

If that's really the case then the biggest problem here would be the UCI as far as I'm concerned.

Agree, but based on history of previous doping cases, whoever cooperated got reduced bans, but who was willing to fight to clear his name in most cases got maximal sentence.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Froome says that even if he's found guilty any results earned between the date of the offence and the date of the verdict will not be taken away from him:

Froome then affirmed that, as he sees it, any eventual ban would commence on the day of the verdict and that any results earned between the Vuelta and the verdict would still stand. Therefore, if the case were to drag on past the Giro d’Italia and Tour de France he could race and possibly win both, safe in the knowledge the results would stand.

“I think that’s what the rules read, yes. I think that’s what the WADA rules state,” Froome said.

“It’s a very different situation to the [Alberto] Contador case,” he added, referring to the Spaniard whose 2012 ban for a clenbuterol positive returned at the 2010 Tour was backdated to 2011, causing him to lost his Giro title from that year.

What a snake. That's not what the rules say at all. Petacchi lost his victories in that one Giro. Why would Froome's case be different?

The clinic have been bouncing this about for months now .... I'm going with Froome (ie. Mike Morgan) on this one.

based on..... ????

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Yeah it's Froome's wishful thinking, he has a bad advisers on this.
He thinks his results between Vuelta 2017 and the day of his verdict will stand: "I think that's what the rules state".
Yet he also thinks that rules allow him to race, and that any other rider in his position previously had raced! :surprised:
I don't know if he's playing dumb, or he is just dumb!

Do you really think that you know more about the anti-doping laws than one of the world's leading lawyers in the field?

i thought the backdating of a ban was alrteady thrashed out here many pages back and the consensus was that if he cant explain the result and gets an ADRV, his ban is backdated to the date he was popped/glowing, thereby putting at risk any results he gains while riding in the intervening period?

No, only if he had been provisionally suspended. The n that time would count towards the ban. If sanctioned his ban will start from the date of the decision. If there have been unnecessary delays on the part of the prosecution he could backdate it to the time of those delays, but as he's been racing I don't think he'd have grounds for such an argument.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Point 3 on pages 12-13 seems the pertinent one. Froome can easily argue that his results have not been effected by the amount of salbutamol he took on that day in September seeing as he's taken plenty of it since quite legally. It is also implicit in rules which allow him to continue racing.

can he prove it though?!! no he cant so hes banned, otherwise every rider would have the same 'defence'

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Point 3 on pages 12-13 seems the pertinent one. Froome can easily argue that his results have not been effected by the amount of salbutamol he took on that day in September seeing as he's taken plenty of it since quite legally. It is also implicit in rules which allow him to continue racing.

can he prove it though?!! no he cant so hes banned, otherwise every rider would have the same 'defence'

We're not talking about whether he will be banned. We're talking about whether he keeps his intervening results.

 

[GraftPunk]

The irony of Froome - cured of bilharzia, now has a case of the hubris.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Well, yes, but Contador could have made a similar argument, as he was tested constantly while riding prior to the CAS decision.

But Contador was an appeal case, so the 'right' decision in that case got backdated as if it had been delivered at the time of the 'wrong' decision. Effectively it stated that had the 'right' decision been delivered at the initial hearing he would not have been able to start those races. Froome is allowed to start these races without question.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

The irony of Froome - cured of bilharzia, now has a case of the hubris.

Only known cure for hubris is a double dose of nemesis

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Article on disqualification of results (starts on page 7):

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf.

Point 3 on pages 12-13 seems the pertinent one. Froome can easily argue that his results have not been effected by the amount of salbutamol he took on that day in September seeing as he's taken plenty of it since quite legally. It is also implicit in rules which allow him to continue racing.

can he prove it though?!! no he cant so hes banned, otherwise every rider would have the same 'defence'

We're not talking about whether he will be banned. We're talking about whether he keeps his intervening results.

and my point was if he cant explain the high reading at the AAF stage he gets an ADRV, a ban and will lose any results from vuelta onward to end o fban

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Froome says that even if he's found guilty any results earned between the date of the offence and the date of the verdict will not be taken away from him:

Froome then affirmed that, as he sees it, any eventual ban would commence on the day of the verdict and that any results earned between the Vuelta and the verdict would still stand. Therefore, if the case were to drag on past the Giro d’Italia and Tour de France he could race and possibly win both, safe in the knowledge the results would stand.

“I think that’s what the rules read, yes. I think that’s what the WADA rules state,” Froome said.

“It’s a very different situation to the [Alberto] Contador case,” he added, referring to the Spaniard whose 2012 ban for a clenbuterol positive returned at the 2010 Tour was backdated to 2011, causing him to lost his Giro title from that year.

What a snake. That's not what the rules say at all. Petacchi lost his victories in that one Giro. Why would Froome's case be different?

The clinic have been bouncing this about for months now .... I'm going with Froome (ie. Mike Morgan) on this one.

based on..... ????

"Im going with" indicates personal choice.....it doesn't need to be based on anything.

But since you ask, this particular choice is based on a belief that Froome is likely to be taking personal advice from one of, if not the, leading sports Lawyers in the world.

I may be wrong, one of the Clinic sleuths may know better. Time will tell.

That OK?

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

Froome says that even if he's found guilty any results earned between the date of the offence and the date of the verdict will not be taken away from him:

Froome then affirmed that, as he sees it, any eventual ban would commence on the day of the verdict and that any results earned between the Vuelta and the verdict would still stand. Therefore, if the case were to drag on past the Giro d’Italia and Tour de France he could race and possibly win both, safe in the knowledge the results would stand.

“I think that’s what the rules read, yes. I think that’s what the WADA rules state,” Froome said.

“It’s a very different situation to the [Alberto] Contador case,” he added, referring to the Spaniard whose 2012 ban for a clenbuterol positive returned at the 2010 Tour was backdated to 2011, causing him to lost his Giro title from that year.

What a snake. That's not what the rules say at all. Petacchi lost his victories in that one Giro. Why would Froome's case be different?

The clinic have been bouncing this about for months now .... I'm going with Froome (ie. Mike Morgan) on this one.

based on..... ????

"Im going with" indicates personal choice.....it doesn't need to be based on anything.

But since you ask, this particular choice is based on a belief that Froome is likely to be taking personal advice from one of, if not the, leading sports Lawyers in the world.

I may be wrong, one of the Clinic sleuths may know better. Time will tell.

That OK?[/quote]

thats fine, BB! but i just thought you might have found a nugget of case history or a precedent case with which to base your choice on, and to enlighten us non believers, but no, its blind faith in mike morgan, and thats ok, its honest and i respect that, its better than 'i believe in sky and every press release they issue'.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

thats fine, BB! but i just thought you might have found a nugget of case history to base your choice on, and to enlighten us non believers, but no, its blind faith in mike morgan, and thats ok, its honest and i respect that, its better than 'i believe in sky and every press release they issue'.[/quote]

Cool To clarify it's far from blind faith in Morgan, it's just a judgement call, belief that he's closest to the case, an expert in sports law and probably even been involved in some pretribunal sparring already with the opposing team to establish the rules in play.

So, for this particular sub plot of the saga, if I had to put my money on a horse, it's the one Froome/Morgan is riding.

But then again I always lose money on horses :lol:

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

thats fine, BB! but i just thought you might have found a nugget of case history or a precedent case with which to base your choice on, and to enlighten us non believers, but no, its blind faith in mike morgan, and thats ok, its honest and i respect that, its better than 'i believe in sky and every press release they issue'.

It's not blind faith to believe that one of the world's leading sports lawyers may be better informed on points of sports law than some anonymous poster on a internet forum.

Just as it's not blind faith to believe that Roger Federer would also beat that poster at tennis.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

thats fine, BB! but i just thought you might have found a nugget of case history or a precedent case with which to base your choice on, and to enlighten us non believers, but no, its blind faith in mike morgan, and thats ok, its honest and i respect that, its better than 'i believe in sky and every press release they issue'.

It's not blind faith to believe that one of the world's leading sports lawyers may be better informed on points of sports law than some anonymous poster on a internet forum.

Just as it's not blind faith to believe that Roger Federer would also beat that poster at tennis.

Can someone explain to me Mike Morgan's exact role and how he's involved in this? I understand he's a sports lawyer. Is he representing Froome?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Can someone explain to me Mike Morgan's exact role and how he's involved in this? I understand he's a sports lawyer. Is he representing Froome?

He's Froome's lawyer on this case. He seems to be the go-to-guy for doping cases (in Europe at least)