Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1150 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Parker said:
El Pistolero said:
Parker said:
El Pistolero said:
Not for my entertainment, but for justice. Like I said, he shouldn't be riding the Tour, but if he does decide to start he will be responsible for his own actions. He's going to get booed, he's going to get insulted and he will jeopardize the safety of his team-mates and himself. That's ALL on him.

Froome will put a cross-mark on his team during the Tour and he will be responsible if anything happens to them. If Froome was a decent human being he would not start, but we all know he isn't.
So now we add victim blaming to your unpleasant traits.
Froome is not a victim. The victims in this case would be Froome's team-mates because their safety is at risk because of Froome.

All of this can be solved if Froome does the ethical thing and not race until his case has closed. And that's why I say that Froome is responsible for his own actions.

Froome shouldn't go the Tour, just like Trump shouldn't visit Jerusalem. It only adds oil to the fire. Sadly we're dealing with two bad people.
If their safety is at risk then that is the fault of those doing the threatening. Nobody else. But you seem to think it's justified. Like I said - Nasty piece of work.
So when Trump declares Jerusalem the official capital of Israel, and this causes riots in the Middle East, then Trump is not responsible for the violence this caused? I'm sorry, but that is not a good way of thinking.

More than one person or group can be at fault, for different reasons.
So now we've elevated cycling and a pantomime villain to the same level as Middle East politics and religious hatred and conflict :eek:

FFS....get a grip man
 
Carstenbf said:
fmk_RoI said:
Carstenbf said:
So enough with that talking point, please ..
Do you actually believe in 'talking points' or is it just one of those things said when you really really really want to disagree but don't know whsat to say? How do these 'talking points' come, is there a WhatsApp group, or are they transmitted through the ether right into brains?
Bad choice of words I suppose. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Just come across the argument very frequently.
You directed it at me. And maybe you're coming across the argument very frequently for a bloody good reason. FFS, even Wiggo's Package is using the same damned argument.
 
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.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
Someone should explain Froome how it really works:
* He's allowed to race until there's a verdict
* If he's banned he'll get a backdated ban so he can come back as soon as possible
The show must go on with as little interruption as possible
 
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).
 
The phrase “any eventual ban” is quite a change from “I’ve broken no rules and am confident that we will get to the bottom of this.” Is he starting to prepare himself for a sanction?

As for what period of time the ban will cover, we’ve discussed this at great length. There’s one WADA rule suggesting the ban would begin with the decision (10.11), and another (10.8) saying all results from the time of the positive will be disqualified. But just as “any eventual ban” is an interesting concession, so is his statement that he could win both GTs and the results stand. It’s a rather rash remark to be made at this point, because if the case does drag on to past the Tour, though I very much doubt it will, this statement of his could be used as evidence that he intentionally delayed the process.

OTOH, Froome might accept a ban in return for what he considers favorable timing. Remember that earlier story about how he was willing to accept a short ban. That was denied by other sources, but presumably it had at least the kernel of truth that bargaining was going on. At that time, maybe Froome still thought he had a chance to be exonerated, or failing that, to get a ban starting with the positive and short enough to end before the Giro. If that, too, failed, the next fallback position would logically be a ban that started with the decision, with the Vuelta of course stripped, but no back-dating. I don’t think he could delay the decision past the Tour, but maybe past the Giro, and if the ban were a year or less, he could race the Tour next year.

It wouldn’t be that bad an outcome, given that winning the Giro-Tour double was always going to be really tough. Based on recent history, he probably would not only not win the Tour, but would have trouble even podiuming. So he could take consolation that he wasn’t losing that much by being banned for the Tour.

“I’m racing because the rules say I can race, and any other rider in my position previously has raced."
Not true, by any reasonable understanding of "in my position". We know that other riders with salbutamol AAFs have been provisionally suspended, and there is no public knowledge of riders in that situation who raced. There may be a few, but this is speculative. And we can be virtually certain that no one with a salbutamol level that high raced.
 
Re:

Blanco said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

ice&fire said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
Someone should explain Froome how it really works:
* He's allowed to race until there's a verdict
* If he's banned he'll get a backdated ban so he can come back as soon as possible
The show must go on with as little interruption as possible
Maybe someone did.. someone like a lawyer who understands the rules maybe
 
If he gets banned before the Giro begins, I wouldn't mind if he kept his results (minus the Vuelta ofc) and the ban started on the day of the decision. It's quite implausible for no decision to have been reached before the Tour begins, so I guess with his interpretation the best case scenario is that he gets to race the Giro (and complete it) before the decision.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
The phrase “any eventual ban” is quite a change from “I’ve broken no rules and am confident that we will get to the bottom of this.” Is he starting to prepare himself for a sanction?

As for what period of time the ban will cover, we’ve discussed this at great length. There’s one WADA rule suggesting the ban would begin with the decision (10.11), and another (10.8) saying all results from the time of the positive will be disqualified. But just as “any eventual ban” is an interesting concession, so is his statement that he could win both GTs and the results stand. It’s a rather rash remark to be made at this point, because if the case does drag on to past the Tour, though I very much doubt it will, this statement of his could be used as evidence that he intentionally delayed the process.
You're reading way to much into that. He's just addressing a point of law and what would happen if a certain scenario played out. A scenario that I'm sure he has discussed fully with his lawyer before deciding to return to racing.
 
Re:

Blanco said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Blanco said:
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).
 
Re:

Netserk said:
If he gets banned before the Giro begins, I wouldn't mind if he kept his results (minus the Vuelta ofc) and the ban started on the day of the decision. It's quite implausible for no decision to have been reached before the Tour begins, so I guess with his interpretation the best case scenario is that he gets to race the Giro (and complete it) before the decision.
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
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Blanco said:
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?
No I don't. But I'm still very curious does Froome knows the fact that Ulissi and Petacchi didn't raced during their investigations? Cause it looks like he doesn't know! Did this world leading lawyer told him? It looks a bit strange...
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
El Pistolero said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
Name me one example where a rider tested positive during a race, was found guilty, but was allowed to keep his victories.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Merckx index said:
The phrase “any eventual ban” is quite a change from “I’ve broken no rules and am confident that we will get to the bottom of this.” Is he starting to prepare himself for a sanction?

As for what period of time the ban will cover, we’ve discussed this at great length. There’s one WADA rule suggesting the ban would begin with the decision (10.11), and another (10.8) saying all results from the time of the positive will be disqualified. But just as “any eventual ban” is an interesting concession, so is his statement that he could win both GTs and the results stand. It’s a rather rash remark to be made at this point, because if the case does drag on to past the Tour, though I very much doubt it will, this statement of his could be used as evidence that he intentionally delayed the process.
You're reading way to much into that. He's just addressing a point of law and what would happen if a certain scenario played out. A scenario that I'm sure he has discussed fully with his lawyer before deciding to return to racing.
Froome fans are becoming more and more omniscient by the minute.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
brownbobby said:
El Pistolero said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
Name me one example where a rider tested positive during a race, was found guilty, but was allowed to keep his victories.
I don't need to....I don't know exactly how the rules work specific to Froome's case....so I'm deferring to someone who I 'think' will have gone to great lengths to understand exactly how the rules apply to Froome's specific case.

Time may yet prove me wrong, but that's what I'm going with for now.

If you want to go with your own and the Clinics interpretation of how the rules work specific to Froome's case then that's your prerogative. Knock yourself out

Edit: in case you thought otherwise, Froome doesn't suggest he'll keep his Vuelta result, just any results between the Vuelta and any eventual sanction.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
King Boonen said:
Blanco said:
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.
 
Re:

Bronstein said:
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS