Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1159 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
GraftPunk said:
The mention of MAO inhibitors is a new twist. I hadn't heard that one before. MAO inhibitors raise the levels of transmitters like noradrenaline, which compete with salbutamol for its receptors. The question is whether they can also compete with salubtamol for the organic cation transporters (OCTs) involved in excretion in the kidneys. They should bind to these transporters, and some studies report at least some affinity, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that prior use of MAO inhibitors could cause an increase in salbutamol levels in the urine.

In the process of checking this out, though, i found an article that describes the discovery of some stronger inhibitors of this transporter (OCT). These substances aren't banned, of course, so in theory one could take one of these drugs to block salbutamol excretion. IOW, this would be a masking agent. Salbutamol levels in the body would build up, and if one stopped taking this masking agent, there should be a spike in urine concentrations of salbutamol, but with the proper scheduling, i could see how an agent like this could be used to great effect.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/tour-de-france-chiefs-set-to-block-chris-froom-entry-if-salbutamol-case-is-unresolved-833658.html

Fresh cheese in FMK’s stale cheese sandwich?

Again, the obvious solution to this problem (if the case isn’t resolved by the Tour, but I’m quite sure it will be) is just to have the Tribunal assure everyone that any ban will be proactive. I think that would require bending the rules, but that would cause less of an uproar than a CAS case on whether a rider could be banned from the Tour. The main problem with this would be it would give Froome carte blanche to delay the case until after the Tour, so there would have to be some kind of conditions attached.

Parker said:
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.
That's an interesting question, actually. I think it would depend on the details of the lab test. I think WADA will sometimes consider appealing a decision not because they believe it's necessarily wrong, but because they believe it's important to clarify the thinking behind it, and establish a clear precedent for future cases. AFAIK, no athlete has ever "passed" a lab test like this (though Sundby did reproduce his salbutamol values using a procedure that, while violating the WADA rules, was transparently presented as medically necessary). So if Froome had managed to duplicate his AAF in the lab--particularly with an off-the-charts value that several controlled studies hadn't reported--this would have implications for the rule on allowed amounts. In that situation, WADA might have felt compelled to let CAS have the final word.
 
Lappartient is all over the map. In the beginning of this month, he said Froome's case needed to be resolved as soon as possible. Then in Italy over the past weekend, he acknowledged that the case probably wouldn't be resolved before the Giro, and counseled patience. Now he's saying the decision better occur before the Tour, or it would be a "disaster". Why not a disaster if Froome rides the Giro?

But here's where it gets really strange:

Lappartient confirmed that if the Froome case was sent to the UCI Anti-doping Tribunal and he was found guilty of an alleged anti-doping violation, he would be immediately suspended. Froome could only appeal to the CAS to overturn the UCI Anti-doping Tribunal verdict.

"If this goes to the Tribunal it will be up to the Tribunal to decide. If they decide to give a penalty a one-year suspension or whatever, then this will apply immediately," Lappartient said.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-it-would-be-difficult-for-froome-to-ride-the-tour-de-france-without-a-verdict/

He's assuming that it won't be a back-dated suspension, or if it is, it will be longer than nine months (because if it weren't, it would end before the Tour). So he's implying he has some information on what the decision will or will not be. I don't see how he could know this for certain, and even if he did, he certainly shouldn't make his information public.

But if that is the case, if any suspension is proactive, then there's no (official) problem with Froome's riding the Giro or the Tour, because his results will count, unless the decision comes down during the race.

But as I've said before, it seems unlikely the decision will be announced during either GT. If the judge came to a decision during the GT, that would mean the hearing had been held prior to the GT. If the judge knew by the time the GT started that the decision would be a suspension--it was just a matter of preparing the report--s/he could surely instruct the UCI to hold Froome out of the race, with the period prior to the official announcement credited to time served. If the judge did not know what the decision would be when the GT started, s/he would most likely postpone the announcement till after the race was over.
 
Re: Froome Talk Only is th

Lappartient's comment yesterday:

"If this goes to the Tribunal it will be up to the Tribunal to decide. If they decide to give a penalty a one-year suspension or whatever, then this will apply immediately," Lappartient said.
That Suggests Froome hasn't yet refused an Acceptance of Consequences so this is not at Tribunal yet?
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Froome Talk Only is th

samhocking said:
Lappartient's comment yesterday:

"If this goes to the Tribunal it will be up to the Tribunal to decide. If they decide to give a penalty a one-year suspension or whatever, then this will apply immediately," Lappartient said.
That Suggests Froome hasn't yet refused an Acceptance of Consequences so this is not at Tribunal yet?
lappartient seems to be all over the shop, he must be getting his info from this forum! :lol:
 
I can see how he would be all over the shop in terms knowing when the case will conclude by and before what GT, but that statement reads pretty clearly to me. Even considering translation errors, it would be difficult to translate meaning that much perhaps?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Froome Talk Only is th

samhocking said:
Lappartient's comment yesterday:

"If this goes to the Tribunal it will be up to the Tribunal to decide. If they decide to give a penalty a one-year suspension or whatever, then this will apply immediately," Lappartient said.
That Suggests Froome hasn't yet refused an Acceptance of Consequences so this is not at Tribunal yet?
Consistent with Lappartient's comments a couple of days ago that the case is with LADS and that the ADT is being consulted by LADS on some procedural issues
 
Re:

macbindle said:
The Times is reporting that race organisers may exclude Froome from this year's Tour.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chris-froome-may-be-banned-from-tour-de-france-dpfwq39l8

Nibali will be pleased, and should he win we will finally have a clean Tour winner we can all get behind :lol:
Looks like the stale cheese sandwich has come home to roost! Now for the Giro to return the favor :cool:

But two senior cycling sources have told Press Association Sport that ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has more discretion on who it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over them to race.

ASO is understood to be confident that it could resist any legal challenge from Team Sky as it has clauses in its rules about safeguarding the image of the race.
 
I was reflecting Lappartients comments more in reference of Merckx Index comment above that "UCI has found Froome guilty. That's why the Tribunal was opened and a judge appointed:" Lappartient says that hasn't happened yet though? Does LADS issue the Acceptance of Consequences or does UCI ADT? I'm asking, I don't know who does this? UCI rules say "If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication" so it suggests Froome has not yet refused any Acceptance of Consequences yet according to Lappartient's comments yesterday.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
macbindle said:
The Times is reporting that race organisers may exclude Froome from this year's Tour.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chris-froome-may-be-banned-from-tour-de-france-dpfwq39l8

Nibali will be pleased, and should he win we will finally have a clean Tour winner we can all get behind :lol:
Looks like the stale cheese sandwich has come home to roost! Now for the Giro to return the favor :cool:

But two senior cycling sources have told Press Association Sport that ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has more discretion on who it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over them to race.

ASO is understood to be confident that it could resist any legal challenge from Team Sky as it has clauses in its rules about safeguarding the image of the race.
It's logical. Froome has gone from big bucks attraction to an embarrassment for Le Tour. While Lappy is doing his political thing, Prudhomme has to protect Le Tour from becoming more of a farce than acceptable. I guess the fact that if Froome appeals, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the
Chambre Arbitrale du Sport from Paris gives ASO better chances to stop the dawg.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I was reflecting Lappartients comments more in reference of Merckx Index comment above that "UCI has found Froome guilty. That's why the Tribunal was opened and a judge appointed:" Lappartient says that hasn't happened yet though? Does LADS issue the Acceptance of Consequences or does UCI ADT? I'm asking, I don't know who does this?
I posted this yesterday, from VN:

Lappartient confirmed that the case is now before the UCI’s legal department (LADS) and that the one-person panel has been appointed. That means lawyers and experts on both sides are preparing their case.
If a judge has been appointed, then according to the guidelines, which I also posted upthread, an Acceptance of Consequences letter has been sent (by LADS) and refused. The lawyers should be preparing their case for the hearing. When Lappartient says the Tribunal is only consulting, I assume that means a date for a hearing has not been set and the sides still have not sent all the requested documents. He said they are being very careful (UCI at least) and making sure they send everything the judge wants, and only that. I think this is what he means when he says the Tribunal is only consulting at this point.

As I said, Lappartient has been all over the map, and some of what's he's reported to say seems to contradict other things, like whether the case is at LADS or involves the Tribunal. But saying a judge has been appointed is pretty clear, and doesn't lend itself to any other interpretation.

Again:

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/

Proceedings are initiated by the UCI through the filing of a written petition to the Secretariat.

Upon receipt of the written petition by the UCI, the Secretariat shall assign the case to a Single Judge appointed from amongst the members of the Tribunal.

The Single Judge shall set a time limit of at least 15 days for the Defendant to submit an answer containing:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/16/95/42/Anti-DopingTribunalProceduralRules_English.pdf

It’s the last step that seems to be delayed.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
macbindle said:
The Times is reporting that race organisers may exclude Froome from this year's Tour.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chris-froome-may-be-banned-from-tour-de-france-dpfwq39l8

Nibali will be pleased, and should he win we will finally have a clean Tour winner we can all get behind :lol:
Looks like the stale cheese sandwich has come home to roost! Now for the Giro to return the favor :cool:

But two senior cycling sources have told Press Association Sport that ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has more discretion on who it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over them to race.

ASO is understood to be confident that it could resist any legal challenge from Team Sky as it has clauses in its rules about safeguarding the image of the race.
Now, I would like to hear what FMK thinks about this. I've stayed quiet when he has been praying for anyone to comment about the disrepute, so hope we will have his say on what he thinks about these latest rumours.

It doesn't say ASO will do it, it is based on anonymous sources, but normally when there is smoke...

Personally I think this is more political pressure than anything else, but it seems that at least ASO thinks they would have the case if that is requires.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
thehog said:
macbindle said:
The Times is reporting that race organisers may exclude Froome from this year's Tour.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chris-froome-may-be-banned-from-tour-de-france-dpfwq39l8

Nibali will be pleased, and should he win we will finally have a clean Tour winner we can all get behind :lol:
Looks like the stale cheese sandwich has come home to roost! Now for the Giro to return the favor :cool:

But two senior cycling sources have told Press Association Sport that ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has more discretion on who it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over them to race.

ASO is understood to be confident that it could resist any legal challenge from Team Sky as it has clauses in its rules about safeguarding the image of the race.
Now, I would like to hear what FMK thinks about this. I've stayed quiet when he has been praying for anyone to comment about the disrepute, so hope we will have his say on what he thinks about these latest rumours.

It doesn't say ASO will do it, it is based on anonymous sources, but normally when there is smoke...

Personally I think this is more political pressure than anything else, but it seems that at least ASO thinks they would have the case if that is requires.
The fact that ASO are releasing this as a strategic leak of a rumour tells you pretty much all you need to know: it's PR. Legally, nothing's changed since Boonen, nothing's changed since Contador, the law still favours the athlete:
ASO is understood to be confident it could resist any legal challenge from Team Sky, possibly dragging the case into the French civil courts. However, ASO was forced to back down in a similar case in 2009 when it tried to stop Tom Boonen from riding the Tour de France following his out of competition positive test for cocaine. Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme also accepted that Alberto Contador had the right to ride the Tour de France in 2011 as he awaited the appeal process of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Contador finished in the 2011 Tour de France, but was later stripped of his results after the CAS banned him for two years.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
thehog said:
macbindle said:
The Times is reporting that race organisers may exclude Froome from this year's Tour.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chris-froome-may-be-banned-from-tour-de-france-dpfwq39l8

Nibali will be pleased, and should he win we will finally have a clean Tour winner we can all get behind :lol:
Looks like the stale cheese sandwich has come home to roost! Now for the Giro to return the favor :cool:

But two senior cycling sources have told Press Association Sport that ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has more discretion on who it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over them to race.

ASO is understood to be confident that it could resist any legal challenge from Team Sky as it has clauses in its rules about safeguarding the image of the race.
Now, I would like to hear what FMK thinks about this. I've stayed quiet when he has been praying for anyone to comment about the disrepute, so hope we will have his say on what he thinks about these latest rumours.

It doesn't say ASO will do it, it is based on anonymous sources, but normally when there is smoke...

Personally I think this is more political pressure than anything else, but it seems that at least ASO thinks they would have the case if that is requires.
Well I was correct in my assertion that pressure is mounting and the race organizations are looking for ways to stop from Froome from riding on way or another.

FMK will tell you that he is right, even when he is wrong and it’s all just “PR” even though an official statement hasn’t been released :cool:
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
samhocking said:
I was reflecting Lappartients comments more in reference of Merckx Index comment above that "UCI has found Froome guilty. That's why the Tribunal was opened and a judge appointed:" Lappartient says that hasn't happened yet though? Does LADS issue the Acceptance of Consequences or does UCI ADT? I'm asking, I don't know who does this?
I posted this yesterday, from VN:

Lappartient confirmed that the case is now before the UCI’s legal department (LADS) and that the one-person panel has been appointed. That means lawyers and experts on both sides are preparing their case.
If a judge has been appointed, then according to the guidelines, which I also posted upthread, an Acceptance of Consequences letter has been sent (by LADS) and refused. The lawyers should be preparing their case for the hearing. When Lappartient says the Tribunal is only consulting, I assume that means a date for a hearing has not been set and the sides still have not sent all the requested documents. He said they are being very careful (UCI at least) and making sure they send everything the judge wants, and only that. I think this is what he means when he says the Tribunal is only consulting at this point.

As I said, Lappartient has been all over the map, and some of what's he's reported to say seems to contradict other things, like whether the case is at LADS or involves the Tribunal. But saying a judge has been appointed is pretty clear, and doesn't lend itself to any other interpretation.

Again:

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/

Proceedings are initiated by the UCI through the filing of a written petition to the Secretariat.

Upon receipt of the written petition by the UCI, the Secretariat shall assign the case to a Single Judge appointed from amongst the members of the Tribunal.

The Single Judge shall set a time limit of at least 15 days for the Defendant to submit an answer containing:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/16/95/42/Anti-DopingTribunalProceduralRules_English.pdf

It’s the last step that seems to be delayed.
OK, so Lappartient is simply not aware Froome has refused the Acceptance of Consequences then by the sound of it, or has used the phrase "If this goes to the Tribunal" simply not give away the steps already completed I assume? Thanks.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
yaco said:
We have to remember that once a tribunal hearing is held then allow four to six weeks for a reasoned decision.
Sorry to disappoint but there will be no public reasoned decision.
Do we get a decision within four to six weeks irrespective of what is publicised ? I am getting seriously bored with this, either ban him or don't, preferably before the giro.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
yaco said:
We have to remember that once a tribunal hearing is held then allow four to six weeks for a reasoned decision.
Sorry to disappoint but there will be no public reasoned decision.
Whether there is a publically realised decision is irrelevant, as my post is referring to the timelines between the end of the hearing and a decision by the arbitrators - Any decision won't happen a few days after the finish of the tribunal hearing.
 
red_flanders said:
Robert5091 said:
ASO have n't paid Froome 2 million Euro and can claim it's for his own safety - touché! :D
Nailed it.
How much has been paid up front etc.? RCS could recind the deal based on misrepresentation for Froome’s failure to tell them of the AAF.

Common law under contract will trump any rules set out by the UCI.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY