Back at the Ruta, one of the riders, can't remember who, said he chatted with Froome at the finish of one stage, and came away with a different understanding of his situation. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but now I think Froome may have told him he expects if there is a ban it will be proactive, i.e., no back-dating, meaning any results prior to the decision will be retained. IOW, stop worrying that Froome is riding under a cloud.
This raises an interesting situation. Froome obviously wants to ride the Giro, so if he thinks any ban will be proactive, it's in his interest that the decision be delayed till after that GT. Now maybe the decision could come sooner, but suppose there's bargaining going on. Froome is willing to accept a ban of a year, more or less, if it's proactive and comes after the Giro. He promises not to appeal (OK, we're not talking about a sworn statement, but a probable word of honor situation). WADA/UCI also promise not to appeal if the ban is a year, more or less.
Now here's the rub. The two sides could in theory come to this agreement at any time, but they can't announce it before the end of the Giro, because the ban has to begin when the decision is announced. So Froome would be riding the Giro, knowing he will keep the results, but no one else can know. So this doesn't really solve the problem of riding under a cloud, because everyone thinks he is, and all the bad publicity, complaints, threats, etc., will continue.
So what can Froome do? Maybe assure Vegni, Prudhomme, Lappartient in confidence of what the deal is? But wouldn't that also be an admission that the decision has been made? A public announcement by Froome and UCI assuring everyone that if there is a ban, it will be proactive and not be announced during the Giro? But even that would seem to be more than they could say if the decision is not official at that time. Maybe one of our lawyers can suggest a way they could pull this off.
veganrob said:
I never said she should butt out or stop what she is doing in social media or whatever. I just said by being there, she opens herself up to criticism. And she has done her fair share of it also. i don't think she shies away from it at all
I give Michelle credit for not playing the wife card (as far as I know). That contrasts with, say, Ivanka Trump, who as special assistant to the President is an official gov. employee, yet when asked about the sexual harassment claims against the President, replied, I don't think that's an appropriate question to ask the President's daughter. I think that kind of double standard is what bothers a lot of posters here, but again, I don't think Michelle herself is guilty of it. Some of her fans/defenders, but not she herself.