Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1158 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

ferryman said:
@ MI:

“Before passing to the next phase, we’ve got to be sure to have responded to every question. Nobody wants to risk going forward without having closed every detail. For that reason, LADS has asked some questions to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, to be sure to have followed the correct procedure,” Lappartient said.'


This part bothers me. Lappartient seems to be saying that it’s UCI, not Froome, that’s delaying the case. Why in the world would they not already know the correct procedure, having been through this process more than a dozen times before?


I think, IMHO, there are a couple of interpretations of this statement (at least). 1) LADS are passing on questions to ADT on behalf of Froome's team 2) LADS are confident of a case against Froome but want everything covered a) because Froome's team have put doubts in their mind over procedures or b) just as likely, because of the complexity of the case they want to make sure they have everything covered. My guess (which is as valid as anyone's at this stage I think) is that it is a combination of all of the above!! What a mess!
still looks like delay on the UCI side though. imho it's on them (uci/wada) - why so complicated rules/procedures? you crossed the limit? you failed the test? B confirmed? ok then, see you in 9-12 months. don't like it? find another job.
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
ferryman said:
@ MI:

“Before passing to the next phase, we’ve got to be sure to have responded to every question. Nobody wants to risk going forward without having closed every detail. For that reason, LADS has asked some questions to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, to be sure to have followed the correct procedure,” Lappartient said.'


This part bothers me. Lappartient seems to be saying that it’s UCI, not Froome, that’s delaying the case. Why in the world would they not already know the correct procedure, having been through this process more than a dozen times before?


I think, IMHO, there are a couple of interpretations of this statement (at least). 1) LADS are passing on questions to ADT on behalf of Froome's team 2) LADS are confident of a case against Froome but want everything covered a) because Froome's team have put doubts in their mind over procedures or b) just as likely, because of the complexity of the case they want to make sure they have everything covered. My guess (which is as valid as anyone's at this stage I think) is that it is a combination of all of the above!! What a mess!
still looks like delay on the UCI side though. imho it's on them (uci/wada) - why so complicated rules/procedures? you crossed the limit? you failed the test? B confirmed? ok then, see you in 9-12 months. don't like it? find another job.
It really isn't that simple. I worked in corporate Legal for 30 plus years and lost some and won some. The minituae in some of the cases went back and forth for months and months and months. Again IMHO, Froome's team are on top of this. He will walk..
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
my 2¢ conjecture:
CF gets to start the Giro in Israel/Palestine
Following Sky's Giro history, massive pile up around stage 6 or 7,
CF goes home to focus on TdF
he'd be daft to go to the Tour
I had him starting and crashing out around stage 4, some benign fall leaving him clutching his wrist and wincing in pain, which turned out to be repetitive strain injury from counting his appearance fee over and over again.....
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
glassmoon said:
ferryman said:
@ MI:

“Before passing to the next phase, we’ve got to be sure to have responded to every question. Nobody wants to risk going forward without having closed every detail. For that reason, LADS has asked some questions to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, to be sure to have followed the correct procedure,” Lappartient said.'


This part bothers me. Lappartient seems to be saying that it’s UCI, not Froome, that’s delaying the case. Why in the world would they not already know the correct procedure, having been through this process more than a dozen times before?


I think, IMHO, there are a couple of interpretations of this statement (at least). 1) LADS are passing on questions to ADT on behalf of Froome's team 2) LADS are confident of a case against Froome but want everything covered a) because Froome's team have put doubts in their mind over procedures or b) just as likely, because of the complexity of the case they want to make sure they have everything covered. My guess (which is as valid as anyone's at this stage I think) is that it is a combination of all of the above!! What a mess!
still looks like delay on the UCI side though. imho it's on them (uci/wada) - why so complicated rules/procedures? you crossed the limit? you failed the test? B confirmed? ok then, see you in 9-12 months. don't like it? find another job.
It really isn't that simple. I worked in corporate Legal for 30 plus years and lost some and won some. The minituae in some of the cases went back and forth for months and months and months. Again IMHO, Froome's team are on top of this. He will walk..
Yep, as I've said all along Mike Morgan is no doubt pursuing every possible line of defence (legal/procedural/medical/scientific/etc) all the way into the weeds

It's difficult for a prosecution to hold firm in the face of such an onslaught all Morgan has to find is one beloved patriot in the armour

And the inevitable delays play right into Froome's hands as the terrible otpics of him continuing to race loads more pressure on to the UCI
 
Mike Morgan would be the man to use if you were innocent or guilty. I don't take the opinion Froome appointing him as necessarily Froomes defence must be weak legally or needs to be counterbalanced with a strong legal team. That might be the case, but as is being discussed here, it could well be the other way round and UCI are having to dig deep legally. Who knows. Certainly Lappartient has switched from resolution asap before Giro to it's very complicated and won't be before Giro now. Could be either side, but I would suggest when delays occur it is minutia coming out of both legal teams holding things up now.
 
samhocking said:
Mike Morgan would be the man to use if you were innocent or guilty. I don't take the opinion Froome appointing him as necessarily Froomes defence must be weak legally or needs to be counterbalanced with a strong legal team. That might be the case, but as is being discussed here, it could well be the other way round and UCI are having to dig deep legally. Who knows. Certainly Lappartient has switched from resolution asap before Giro to it's very complicated and won't be before Giro now. Could be either side, but I would suggest when delays occur it is minutia coming out of both legal teams holding things up now.
he needs the lawyer because the scientists couldn't help

the scientists couldn't help because he ingested in a manner he's not allowed to (be that purposefully or not)

that makes him guilty

Morgan is now trying to turn that guilt around 'legally'....the scientific guilt remains

although perhaps if we look into Froome's and SDBs eyes they can tell us he only had a few puffs...so in the eyes of some even the scientific guilt goes.......

I never had s**ual relations with that woman :D
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Can't see how he would be deterred from going to CAS even if it is a long-shot proposition to get the ban reduced. Other cyclists with much less money went from ADT to CAS (although all failed)
I don’t think it’s a certainty that Froome would appeal any ban. People say, what does he have to lose, except money? But CAS doesn’t have to choose between upholding or reversing the ban. They start over, and if Froome appeals the ban, he could get a longer ban. That’s a significant risk he would take, and if the ban were lengthened, it might be backdated, so he lost any results he had hypothetically retained following the Tribunal’s ban.

OTOH, what does Froome have to gain by appealing a ban? Suppose it’s announced after the Giro, is proactive, and a year or less. If that were reversed, he would get the Vuelta back, but that’s pretty much it. Any reversal would come too late for him to race the 2018 Tour, and he would be able to race the 2019 Tour ban or no ban. So he would have to weigh the benefit of getting back the Vuelta vs. the risk of either losing a hypothetical Giro win, or being out for, say, two years, after which his time as a contender might well have passed.

ferryman said:
I worked in corporate Legal for 30 plus years and lost some and won some. The minituae in some of the cases went back and forth for months and months and months. Again IMHO, Froome's team are on top of this. He will walk..
An anti-doping case is not like your usual corporate legal cases. Science matters, a lot. Morgan couldn’t help Contador much, and the meat contamination hypothesis was a real opening. As I've pointed out before, most of the AAFs that do not result in a sanction, and don't involve TUEs or NCA, are clenbuterol cases. I'd say if you test positive for CB, the odds of getting off are better than if you exceed the DL for salbutamol, though of course establishing the source of the meat matters. But there's a real precedent there which, AFAIK, does not exist for salbutamol.

Wiggo's Package said:
It's difficult for a prosecution to hold firm in the face of such an onslaught all Morgan has to find is one beloved patriot in the armour
Morgan has to find more than some hypothetical beloved patriot. He has to explain one of the highest salbutamol concentrations ever recorded in an athlete. If there were some obvious explanation, it would have been found and exploited in the past six months. The fact that a judge has been appointed means that LADS already found Froome’s case unconvincing, and proposed a ban. That means the odds of Froome’s winning are significantly less than they were when he was notified of the positive. Morgan has to convince the judge that LADS was wrong.

And the inevitable delays play right into Froome's hands as the terrible otpics of him continuing to race loads more pressure on to the UCI
I'd say Froome is the one who's getting more damaged by the optics. Every day that this drags out, his image looks worse. Even if he's exonerated, he'll be forever tainted. So much has been said about how rare his level is, that unless he's not only exonerated, but publishes the results of the hearing (unlikely), and there's some slam-dunk obvious explanation (which hasn't emerged in the past six months), it will be widely assumed he got off on some technicality.

samhocking said:
Certainly Lappartient has switched from resolution asap before Giro to it's very complicated and won't be before Giro now.
IMO, this was the most interesting thing to come out of his interview. It isn’t just that he has become resigned to the case’s taking a long time to be resolved. In this latest interview, he implied that he knew more than he could talk about, that he had been following the case closely. That clearly wasn’t the situation a few weeks ago, because if he had been that close to the case then, he wouldn’t have made a public pronouncement about needing to speed up, he just would have told both parties. So not only has Lappartient’s opinion about how fast the case is moving changed, but his role in it has, too.

Maybe after he made that public statement a few weeks ago, the judge called him in, explained to him why the case was taking as long as it was, and told him to STFU.

Could be either side, but I would suggest when delays occur it is minutia coming out of both legal teams holding things up now.
To some extent, yes, Lappartient said as much. But other cases have experienced fairly long periods between the appointment of a judge and the hearing. Five of the cases that have gone before the Tribunal have held a hearing, and in those cases, the average time between appointment of the judge and the hearing was about three months.

The other thing is that if Froome’s team is seriously pursuing some unusual theory, they will request a lot of time not just to get all the supporting evidence together, but to call experts to testify, and scientists like these are not exactly on call 24/7. UCI, of course, will have to have its own experts.
 
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Mike Morgan would be the man to use if you were innocent or guilty. I don't take the opinion Froome appointing him as necessarily Froomes defence must be weak legally or needs to be counterbalanced with a strong legal team. That might be the case, but as is being discussed here, it could well be the other way round and UCI are having to dig deep legally. Who knows. Certainly Lappartient has switched from resolution asap before Giro to it's very complicated and won't be before Giro now. Could be either side, but I would suggest when delays occur it is minutia coming out of both legal teams holding things up now.
he needs the lawyer because the scientists couldn't help

the scientists couldn't help because he ingested in a manner he's not allowed to (be that purposefully or not)

that makes him guilty

Morgan is now trying to turn that guilt around 'legally'....the scientific guilt remains

although perhaps if we look into Froome's and SDBs eyes they can tell us he only had a few puffs...so in the eyes of some even the scientific guilt goes.......

I never had s**ual relations with that woman :D
Turn guilt? Surely UCI have to find Froome guilty first for Morgan to have anything to turn? If he was easily scientifically guilty, that would be legally secure enough already for UCI to pass a decision of guilty. Clearly it isn't yet if at all.
 
samhocking said:
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Mike Morgan would be the man to use if you were innocent or guilty. I don't take the opinion Froome appointing him as necessarily Froomes defence must be weak legally or needs to be counterbalanced with a strong legal team. That might be the case, but as is being discussed here, it could well be the other way round and UCI are having to dig deep legally. Who knows. Certainly Lappartient has switched from resolution asap before Giro to it's very complicated and won't be before Giro now. Could be either side, but I would suggest when delays occur it is minutia coming out of both legal teams holding things up now.
he needs the lawyer because the scientists couldn't help

the scientists couldn't help because he ingested in a manner he's not allowed to (be that purposefully or not)

that makes him guilty

Morgan is now trying to turn that guilt around 'legally'....the scientific guilt remains

although perhaps if we look into Froome's and SDBs eyes they can tell us he only had a few puffs...so in the eyes of some even the scientific guilt goes.......

I never had s**ual relations with that woman :D
Turn guilt? Surely UCI have to find Froome guilty first for Morgan to have anything to turn? If he was easily scientifically guilty, that would be legally secure enough already for UCI to pass a decision of guilty. Clearly it isn't yet if at all.
Not so true. Guilt has been established via the AAF. It is now for Froome to provide alternatives of legitimate and acceptable reasons for his high salbutamol reading. If he cannot, the guilty verdict remains in place and he will be suspended from racing. Simple.
 
samhocking said:
Turn guilt? Surely UCI have to find Froome guilty first for Morgan to have anything to turn? If he was easily scientifically guilty, that would be legally secure enough already for UCI to pass a decision of guilty. Clearly it isn't yet if at all.
Seems pretty clear to me. UCI has found Froome guilty. That's why the Tribunal was opened and a judge appointed:

the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

The "consequences" part of Acceptance of Consequences is a ban. If Froome refuses to accept the ban, he's basically appealing UCI's decision to the Tribunal, just as he could appeal the Tribunal's decision to CAS.
 
Merckx index said:
Seems pretty clear to me. UCI has found Froome guilty. That's why the Tribunal was opened and a judge appointed:

This was always going to go to a tribunal. If he was cleared without a tribunal WADA would be sure to appeal a case this high profile, regardless of what evidence had been presented. There would also be inevitable cries of 'cover-up' and 'conspiracy' in some quarters. The full process has to be observed.
 
Parker said:
This was always going to go to a tribunal. If he was cleared without a tribunal WADA would be sure to appeal a case this high profile, regardless of what evidence had been presented. There would also be inevitable cries of 'cover-up' and 'conspiracy' in some quarters. The full process has to be observed.
Well, no, if Froome's positive had not been made public, and he had been cleared, there would have been no appeal, and no one would have known otherwise. Ironically, you're one of those who argue that his positive shouldn't have been leaked, and yet here you are saying the full process has to be observed. It might never have been if the positive hadn't been made public.

Also, if you're saying Froome was not (might not have been) sent an Acceptance of Consequences letter, show me where in the rules it says a case can go to the Tribunal without that letter. If Froome's USG had been 1.034 or higher, the case would not have gone to the Tribunal. If Froome had demonstrated in the lab that he could reach 2000 ng/ml while inhaling no more than the allowed amount, the case would not have gone to the Tribunal. If he had shown that a mistake had been made in the determination of salbutamol level, the case would not have gone to the Tribunal. If he had provided a convincing scientific explanation for his high level, the case would not necessarily have gone to the Tribunal.

Maybe WADA would have appealed in some of these cases, but not in all of them, and maybe not in any of them.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Merckx index said:
Morgan has to find more than some hypothetical beloved patriot. He has to explain one of the highest salbutamol concentrations ever recorded in an athlete. If there were some obvious explanation, it would have been found and exploited in the past six months. The fact that a judge has been appointed means that LADS already found Froome’s case unconvincing, and proposed a ban. That means the odds of Froome’s winning are significantly less than they were when he was notified of the positive. Morgan has to convince the judge that LADS was wrong.
Of the lines of defence I cited (legal/procedural/medical/scientific) you've addressed the apparent problems Froome faces if he's to skate on medical/scientific grounds. The essence being that, if he's genuinely innocent, he should have been able to prove it a long time ago

However, I've said all along that if the Dawg skates it will most likely be on legal/procedural grounds. Mike Morgan will be drilling into the detail of how the Dawg's sample was taken, the chain of custody to the lab, the testing protocols in the lab, etc looking for any suggestion that the correct best practice procedures have not been followed. I'd imagine that every person who handled Froome's sample will have been asked to provide a witness statement and let's hope they all followed best practice, that no corners were cut, and that the UCI has used experienced lawyers to help draft those statements

As I've mentioned before, Morgan got Armitstead a free pass by persuading the CAS appeal panel that the UKAD tester should have spoken to the team mechanics preparing the bikes in the hotel car park and asked them to contact Armitstead during her designated testing hour. It's hard to believe that when UKAD testers are being trained the best practice checklist (go to hotel listed on ADAMS, try the rider's phone if receptionist won't give room number, etc) included "check hotel car park for team mechanics" (although presumably - hopefully! - it does now)

So in the Armitstead case, as far as we know, Morgan really pulled a rabbit out of a hat because he didn't show that the UKAD tester failed to follow the existing best practice checklist instead he persuaded the CAS panel that a new item should be on the checklist that no one had thought of before...!
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
Morgan has to find more than some hypothetical beloved patriot. He has to explain one of the highest salbutamol concentrations ever recorded in an athlete. If there were some obvious explanation, it would have been found and exploited in the past six months. The fact that a judge has been appointed means that LADS already found Froome’s case unconvincing, and proposed a ban. That means the odds of Froome’s winning are significantly less than they were when he was notified of the positive. Morgan has to convince the judge that LADS was wrong.
Of the lines of defence I cited (legal/procedural/medical/scientific) you've addressed the apparent problems Froome faces if he's to skate on medical/scientific grounds. The essence being that, if he's genuinely innocent, he should have been able to prove it a long time ago

However, I've said all along that if the Dawg skates it will most likely be on legal/procedural grounds. Mike Morgan will be drilling into the detail of how the Dawg's sample was taken, the chain of custody to the lab, the testing protocols in the lab, etc looking for any suggestion that the correct best practice procedures have not been followed. I'd imagine that every person who handled Froome's sample will have been asked to provide a witness statement and let's hope they all followed best practice, that no corners were cut, and that the UCI has used experienced lawyers to help draft those statements

As I've mentioned before, Morgan got Armitstead a free pass by persuading the CAS appeal panel that the UKAD tester should have spoken to the team mechanics preparing the bikes in the hotel car park and asked them to contact Armitstead during her designated testing hour. It's hard to believe that when UKAD testers are being trained the best practice checklist (go to hotel listed on ADAMS, try the rider's phone if receptionist won't give room number, etc) included "check hotel car park for team mechanics" (although presumably - hopefully! - it does now)

So in the Armitstead case, as far as we know, Morgan really pulled a rabbit out of a hat because he didn't show that the UKAD tester failed to follow the existing best practice checklist instead he persuaded the CAS panel that a new item should be on the checklist that no one had thought of before...!
a lab procedural /admin *** up does seem the most likely route for morgan seeing as how the scientific route to explain the 2000ng apparently has not favoured him! surely though the authorities will have checked the chain of custody records and the labs accreditation prior to starting the legal proceedings?
 
Merckx index said:
Parker said:
This was always going to go to a tribunal. If he was cleared without a tribunal WADA would be sure to appeal a case this high profile, regardless of what evidence had been presented. There would also be inevitable cries of 'cover-up' and 'conspiracy' in some quarters. The full process has to be observed.
Well, no, if Froome's positive had not been made public, and he had been cleared, there would have been no appeal, and no one would have known otherwise. Ironically, you're one of those who argue that his positive shouldn't have been leaked, and yet here you are saying the full process has to be observed. It might never have been if the positive hadn't been made public.

Also, if you're saying Froome was not (might not have been) sent an Acceptance of Consequences letter, show me where in the rules it says a case can go to the Tribunal without that letter. If Froome's USG had been 1.034 or higher, the case would not have gone to the Tribunal. If Froome had demonstrated in the lab that he could reach 2000 ng/ml while inhaling no more than the allowed amount, the case would not have gone to the Tribunal. If he had shown that a mistake had been made in the determination of salbutamol level, the case would not have gone to the Tribunal. If he had provided a convincing scientific explanation for his high level, the case would not necessarily have gone to the Tribunal.

Maybe WADA would have appealed in some of these cases, but not in all of them, and maybe not in any of them.
To clarify, once it became public it was always going to a tribunal. I would suggest even if he'd shown that he could reach 2000.
 
Merckx index said:
samhocking said:
Turn guilt? Surely UCI have to find Froome guilty first for Morgan to have anything to turn? If he was easily scientifically guilty, that would be legally secure enough already for UCI to pass a decision of guilty. Clearly it isn't yet if at all.
Seems pretty clear to me. UCI has found Froome guilty. That's why the Tribunal was opened and a judge appointed:

the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

The "consequences" part of Acceptance of Consequences is a ban. If Froome refuses to accept the ban, he's basically appealing UCI's decision to the Tribunal, just as he could appeal the Tribunal's decision to CAS.
I was meaning 'turn' more along the lines of turning around something scientifically after at CAS, not internally within LADS/CADF/ADT currently.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
pastronef said:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/tour-de-france-chiefs-set-to-block-chris-froom-entry-if-salbutamol-case-is-unresolved-833658.html

meanwhile in France, Froome, G.Thomas and some others were riding on the cobbles today. Hem, Gruson, and other sectors
Glad to see the Tour organizers have balls.
 
El Pistolero said:
pastronef said:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/tour-de-france-chiefs-set-to-block-chris-froom-entry-if-salbutamol-case-is-unresolved-833658.html

meanwhile in France, Froome, G.Thomas and some others were riding on the cobbles today. Hem, Gruson, and other sectors
Glad to see the Tour organizers have balls.
have to say, maybe it´s better off this way. July in France could be very hard for Froome
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
pastronef said:
El Pistolero said:
pastronef said:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/tour-de-france-chiefs-set-to-block-chris-froom-entry-if-salbutamol-case-is-unresolved-833658.html

meanwhile in France, Froome, G.Thomas and some others were riding on the cobbles today. Hem, Gruson, and other sectors
Glad to see the Tour organizers have balls.
have to say, maybe it´s better off this way. July in France could be very hard for Froome
Yes, he's risking his own life and that of his team-mates. Eddy Merckx got punched hard in the liver during the 1975 Tour for example.

It would be irresponsible to let him start.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY