Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1146 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Parker said:
53*11 said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
red_flanders said:
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)
Thanks, assumed that was it but wasn't sure.

Do we think Froome's lawyer might be presenting a view of the situation that is favorable to Froome? Wouldn't that be his job? Just not sure I'd take what a lawyer advocating for a client says at face value.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Well, yes, but Contador could have made a similar argument, as he was tested constantly while riding prior to the CAS decision.
IIRC his team specifically asked CAS to consider a backdated ban in case he was going to be banned.
Yes he could have made the argument and kept his results, and sit out 2 more years.

I see where this is going, try to win the Giro and then eat a short ban from say June to December while keeping the Giro result :rolleyes:
Honestly backdated bans with loss of results should be the norm following the most logical argument: the athlete commited a punishable offence, so should not have been competing for x months after the infraction, so should lose all results.
With the current set of rules, dragging out the case is a very valid option for athletes.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Parker said:
red_flanders said:
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)
Thanks, assumed that was it but wasn't sure.

Do we think Froome's lawyer might be presenting a view of the situation that is favorable to Froome? Wouldn't that be his job? Just not sure I'd take what a lawyer advocating for a client says at face value.
Morgan hasn't said anything. Froome has. I've just presumed Froome is taking advice before he makes statements like that.....I'm yet to see anyone in authority/outside of the Clinic challenge what Froome said earlier today....plenty of time yet though I guess
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
red_flanders said:
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)
Thanks, assumed that was it but wasn't sure.

Do we think Froome's lawyer might be presenting a view of the situation that is favorable to Froome? Wouldn't that be his job? Just not sure I'd take what a lawyer advocating for a client says at face value.
Morgan hasn't said anything. Froome has. I've just presumed Froome is taking advice before he makes statements like that.....I'm yet to see anyone in authority/outside of the Clinic challenge what Froome said earlier today....plenty of time yet though I guess
Gotcha. I've seen several challenges to it, seems you just don't agree with them. Fine but...

I have no clue what's going to happen. I just don't think it makes sense to argue that someone who is facing sanction or representing someone who is facing sanction will make public statements which are the last word in how the rules will be implemented. Obviously going to paint as positive a picture as they can.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
red_flanders said:
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)
Thanks, assumed that was it but wasn't sure.

Do we think Froome's lawyer might be presenting a view of the situation that is favorable to Froome? Wouldn't that be his job? Just not sure I'd take what a lawyer advocating for a client says at face value.
Morgan hasn't said anything. Froome has. I've just presumed Froome is taking advice before he makes statements like that.....I'm yet to see anyone in authority/outside of the Clinic challenge what Froome said earlier today....plenty of time yet though I guess
Gotcha. I've seen several challenges to it, seems you just don't agree with them. Fine but...

I have no clue what's going to happen. I just don't think it makes sense to argue that someone who is facing sanction or representing someone who is facing sanction will make public statements which are the last word in how the rules will be implemented. Obviously going to paint as positive a picture as they can.
Mostly agree RF, made it clear that's just my view.....and again genuine question, where have you seen these challenges. not doubting you...just haven't seen any myself and always interested to read opposing views?
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Merckx index said:
Well, yes, but Contador could have made a similar argument, as he was tested constantly while riding prior to the CAS decision.
IIRC his team specifically asked CAS to consider a backdated ban in case he was going to be banned.
Yes he could have made the argument and kept his results, and sit out 2 more years.

I see where this is going, try to win the Giro and then eat a short ban from say June to December while keeping the Giro result :rolleyes:
Honestly backdated bans with loss of results should be the norm following the most logical argument: the athlete commited a punishable offence, so should not have been competing for x months after the infraction, so should lose all results.
With the current set of rules, dragging out the case is a very valid option for athletes.
If you actually read the CAS ruling, Contador wanted to have his cake and eat it too, he asked (1) for the backdated ban but (2) keeping all results (because he was cleared by the Spanish doping agency)
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Mostly agree RF, made it clear that's just my view.....and again genuine question, where have you seen these challenges. not doubting you...just haven't seen any myself and always interested to read opposing views?
My mistake, I hadn't noticed the "authority/outside the Clinic" bit.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
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.
But was the Contador decision actually rationalized in that manner by CAS? Because Article 10.11 says “the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision”. That would be the CAS decision, not the Spanish fed decision. CAS was free not to follow that rule, but that’s my point: there’s a lot of flexibility. I think that comes across in the article on fairness as well; several potential factors are discussed. While the fact that Froome has raced and tested negative during this period is certainly relevant, I don’t conclude from that article that it definitely means any ban would start at the time of the CADF decision. Indeed, the article emphasizes this:

Based on CAS jurisprudence, it is, however, possible to extrapolate several factors that hearing panels may take into consideration when assessing the principle of fairness. No one particular factor is determinative on the issue.
Also, the Petacchi case suggests there is no clear rule about when a ban begins. He was provisionally suspended after his positive in May 2007, but then cleared by his national federation in July, much as Contador was. He was eventually banned by CAS in the spring of the following year, backdated to November 1 of the previous year. Why then? That date did not correspond with the date of the “wrong” decision—that was in July. Moreover, he was allowed to keep his results in the Vuelta that year, which came after he was cleared by his home federation.

Then there's this:

LaFlorecita said:
Honestly backdated bans with loss of results should be the norm following the most logical argument: the athlete commited a punishable offence, so should not have been competing for x months after the infraction, so should lose all results.
That’s an excellent counterpoint to the notion that bans should begin when the “right” decision was made. Following that logic, the “right” decision at the time of Froome’s AAF notification (assuming CADF later sanctions him) would have been to suspend himself, so all his results from that time up to the time of a decision should have been DQd.

With the current set of rules, dragging out the case is a very valid option for athletes.
Hence the fairness clause, an attempt to discourage them from doing this. If they are seen to be delaying, they can get both a backdated DQ and a ban going forward from the time of the decision.

In any case, a proactive (from time of decision) ban raises an interesting possibility. Suppose Froome is banned for one year after the Giro. Would that ban be appealed? Probably not by WADA/UCI, because one year is about in keeping with other recent cases. Would Froome appeal it? I’m thinking he might not. What would he have to gain? Mostly the Vuelta. He would be keeping the Giro, and since he had to sit out the 2018 Tour, he couldn’t get that back. He would miss next year’s Giro, but having ridden it this year, that wouldn’t matter, and he would be back in time for the 2019 Tour. So in addition to the Vuelta, all he would have to gain from an appeal would be an early return to racing next year, and a proper preparation for the Tour. But given that he might be given a longer ban by CAS, one that might effectively end his career, Froome might think that was a risk not worth taking.

brownbobby said:
I think in the intervirw Lapartient has said that this is the likely outcome now...ie. unlikely the case will be resolved before the Giro but should be before the Tour
If the Tribunal was indeed convened in the middle of February, the hearing could be going on this week (or maybe delayed to next week because Froome is racing, though since attendance is usually by video conferencing he might be able to do it even during the T-A). In that case, there's a good chance the decision could come before the Giro starts, especially given the provision for expediting. The decision should be reached by the end of the Giro, and since no one wants Froome potentially pulled from that race, that possibility would be enough to have the decision moved up a little.

But then again I always lose money on horses :lol:
You need to go down to the stables before the race begins, and as the saying goes, follow the syringes…
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome at Tirreno-Adriatico, this video was carried by NOS Sport Dutch TV, not sure if it also appears elsewhere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33bZ2LE6sm0

As Froome has said himself, there is no reason why he ought to comment publicly on any of it. The statement about previous cyclists' cases "all of them, they were all racing in the meantime", that part is untrue. Some of them in certain cases, but not all of them.
We don’t even know that. Again, in 2015 there were only four AAFs in road cycling that were not resolved by either TUE or NCA, and which did not result in an ADRV. Based on statistics, it’s most likely all of these were clenbuterol cases, in which case the AAF would have been made public.

A week or two ago, when Froome made basically the same claim, he said he had talked to athletes actually in this situation, and said they included non-cyclists (though this is at odds with his statement, "they were all racing"). So maybe he knows of some athlete in some other sport who had an AAF for salbutamol, didn't announce it, and was eventually cleared. But I'll bet there are very few.

Where I do sympathize with Froome is on the issue of Lappartient and others constantly urging the process to come to a solution. IMO, this is almost interfering with the process, pressuring the judge; they should shut up at this point and let it play out. The process so far seems to have moved at about the same rate as it has for similar cases, maybe a little more slowly but within the permissible range, so I see no evidence yet that Froome is intentionally dragging it out.
 
Wouldn't it just be easier
- even for Froome himself
(to stop him stating things like "all of them, they were all racing in the meantime" :eek: )
- if SDB just bit the bullet and let Sky join the MPCC thus taking
this embarrassment out of competition without having to justify the decision further to any lawyers.
What have they got to lose?
They have nice options for the Giro & Tour without CF.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Wouldn't it just be easier
- even for Froome himself
(to stop him stating things like "all of them, they were all racing in the meantime" :eek: )
- if SDB just bit the bullet and let Sky join the MPCC thus taking
this embarrassment out of competition without having to justify the decision further to any lawyers.
What have they got to lose?
They have nice options for the Giro & Tour without CF.
It may be 'easier'.....but what do they have to lose?

Sky? You could probably make an argument they don't have much to lose.....Froome? 2 Potential GT results that he may yet get to keep for a man who's not getting any younger, and a couple of million dollars (allegedly) on top of any other loss of potential earnings....that's quite a lot to lose.

That would be an interesting conversation....

SDB - "Chris, sorry but we're joining up to the MPCC immediately"

CF :eek:
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
53*11 said:
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.

morgan no d oubt knows his stuff, and has defended and won cases for dopers that is true; just not as much a believer in him as you seem to be; froome hasnt given him much of a case to defend;

Just as it's not blind faith to believe that Roger Federer would also beat that poster at tennis.
big LOLs!!! wtf parker, are you 12? talk about stating the bleedin obvious! are you throwing in the towel? thats just infantile and beneath you really.
also , we are all (mostly ) anonymous here and it is a cycling forum, and this part of the forum is specifically about doping in cycling, so if you come in with an attitude of constantly defending sky on every single post that is in any way critical of sky then you have to expect that others may have very different or opposite viewpoints
and be mature enough to make your points logically, instead of resorting to the obvious, asinine comments as above.
 
brownbobby:
Sky? You could probably make an argument they don't have much to lose.....Froome? 2 Potential GT results
yeah but I am talking about Sky and their credible future (not CF)
Why should Sky prefer a disruptive/tarnished GT leader
over their plentiful new rising stars of this season?
From a PR point of view MPCC is a no-brainer for Sky.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Wouldn't it just be easier
- even for Froome himself
(to stop him stating things like "all of them, they were all racing in the meantime" :eek: )
- if SDB just bit the bullet and let Sky join the MPCC thus taking
this embarrassment out of competition without having to justify the decision further to any lawyers.
What have they got to lose?
They have nice options for the Giro & Tour without CF.
It may be 'easier'.....but what do they have to lose?

Sky? You could probably make an argument they don't have much to lose.....Froome? 2 Potential GT results that he may yet get to keep for a man who's not getting any younger, and a couple of million dollars (allegedly) on top of any other loss of potential earnings....that's quite a lot to lose.

That would be an interesting conversation....

SDB - "Chris, sorry but we're joining up to the MPCC immediately"

CF :eek:
100 percent agree. There were basically three choices: Admit guilt right away and take (possibly lighter) punishment; provisionally suspend with uncertain outcome; or carry on with business as usual in hopes of a successful defense. Only the third has an upside for Sky/Froome.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby:
Sky? You could probably make an argument they don't have much to lose.....Froome? 2 Potential GT results
yeah but I am talking about Sky and their credible future (not CF)
Why should Sky prefer a disruptive/tarnished GT leader
over their plentiful new rising stars of this season?
From a PR point of view MPCC is a no-brainer for Sky.
From a PR point of view that could be argued, but it would also mean that the team would have to submit to additional cortisol tests as required by the MPCC. This is, I think, the principal objection for WT outfits with medical supervision in terms of managing risk.

In the past, the increased risk of DNS due to low cortisol cast a shadow over the team but in practical terms it also adversely affected race planning.

In the present climate however, with the media switched on to the issue of corticosteroid and TUE abuse, the appetite for that risk is probably much lower and as long as a critical mass of WT teams remains outside of MPCC and doesn't get any heat about why it doesn't sign up, there is safety in numbers and room for maneouvre in the applicable rules.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby:
Sky? You could probably make an argument they don't have much to lose.....Froome? 2 Potential GT results
yeah but I am talking about Sky and their credible future (not CF)
Why should Sky prefer a disruptive/tarnished GT leader
over their plentiful new rising stars of this season?
From a PR point of view MPCC is a no-brainer for Sky.
I dunno...maybe they believe in Froome's innocence. Maybe SDB is a man of integrity ( :lol: ) and doesn't believe in hanging a man out to dry whom he believes is not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Just a thought on a direct question you posed to me for which i don't have any real answer :D :D :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY