Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

No need to be aggressive FMK. We all can see the rules. If RCS wish to remove Froome they can, Sky can’t stop them as much as you can’t. You know this. Whether it occurrs or not is another matter. Pressure will mount the closer we get to the Giro with the fact that Froome can most likely keep his result even with a guilty verdict might see action. Again, simple.

 

[Craigee]

Re: Re:

Medical records should remain private

Why?

I thought it was a basic human right, to a private life and privacy or words to that effect.

If you’re a professional , I would think arguments could be mad against that. Re. the above, permanent clinic residents calling other posts silly is always rich.

Yes the fanbois know no boundaries with regard to how silly they look in their weak defence of their favourite athletes and teams Froome and Sky but they're good at telling others that their posts are silly.

Oh the irony in it all.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Medical records should remain private

Why?

I thought it was a basic human right, to a private life and privacy or words to that effect.

If you’re a professional , I would think arguments could be mad against that. Re. the above, permanent clinic residents calling other posts silly is always rich.

Yes the fanbois know no boundaries with regard to how silly they look in their weak defence of their favourite athletes and teams Froome and Sky but they're good at telling others that their posts are silly.

Oh the irony in it all.

That's how things are as they currently stand, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

 

[ontheroad]

Froome is playing a clever game here, he will have been well versed on the rules and is playing for time so that he can serve his ban at least after the Giro and if possible after the tour.

 

[fmk_RoI]

No need to be aggressive FMK. We all can see the rules. If RCS wish to remove Froome they can, Sky can’t stop them as much as you can’t. You know this. Whether it occurrs or not is another matter. Pressure will mount the closer we get to the Giro with the fact that Froome can most likely keep his result even with a guilty verdict might see action. Again, simple.

Hilarious. We've been through this. Shown it's BS. And now here it is repeating like a stale cheese sandwich.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Froome is playing a clever game here, he will have been well versed on the rules and is playing for time so that he can serve his ban at least after the Giro and if possible after the tour.

Froome may win the race but lose the PR game.

Maybe Lappys new motor doping initiative will stop the Dawg

 

[thehog]

Re:

Froome had 1,400,000 reasons to stall procedurally until the first week of May.
Vegni having signaled that he would not prevent Froome from taking the start. Italian press talking about "blemish on the sport" clause as "the document that makes Froome tremble in fear", and that he might be banned from T-A, were being sensational
The €1.4 million appearance fee offsets his legal costs, so Froome ought to be happy to have stretched out the Tribunal procedures for so long
Possibly the judgment may still be announced suddenly in April, and Lappartient is just hedging his bets.
But he seemed unhappy about something during the BBC interview, and that may have been what, his doubt that ADT will conclude before the Giro

Agreed, can’t see Lappartient letting his one slide through the Giro into the Tour.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

[quote="
If it were played, I wonder if the judge would speak out, assuring everyone that any potential ban would be proactive, beginning after the Giro. I doubt that could be done without compromising the rules, but it would certainly be tempting to provide that kind of guarantee that any results would stand. Given the stakes, i could see Vegni, for example, who has already been trying to get assurances of some kind or another, asking the judge to promise that any ban would not be backdated. As the Giro approaches, pressure is going to mount.

If it was going to occur, it would be done at the eleventh hour whereby it would be inconsequential if it was by the rules or not. Reference Sagan’s dismal from the Tour. It’s not like Froome could partition for an injunction for the race to not be run to account for his inclusion.

The eleventh hour is actually several days before the race starts, when RCS accepts the submitted team lists. So, actually, nothing at all like Sagan and more than enough time for a ruling from CAS (who are often quite nimble on their feet, when justice requires it)...

Naturally that requirement is for the the teams. RCS could still remove a rider one day before. Nothing stops them from interpreting their own rules in this way. So yes, similar to Sagan in that there would no time to resolve the issue by legal recourse.

Simple.

Whatever fantasy interpretation of the rules it takes to get you through the night, I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why you haven't got a clue. You're welcome to your religious beliefs.

lashing out? sounds like someone is getting frustrated! the truth is no one knows for sure when or if froome is going to get a ban, it does look more likely now that it could be late april or even during the Giro; if froome gets to ride the Giro and keep any result but gets banned for the tour (he may not even podium) would that make you happier?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

lashing out? sounds like someone is getting frustrated! the truth is no one knows for sure when or if froome is going to get a ban, it does look more likely now that it could be late april or even during the Giro; if froome gets to ride the Giro and keep any result but gets banned for the tour (he may not even podium) would that make you happier?

Whatever you're talking about, it's not the Disrepute clause, that's for sure...

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re:

Froome is playing a clever game here, he will have been well versed on the rules and is playing for time so that he can serve his ban at least after the Giro and if possible after the tour.

Winning the Giro and the Tour and the system as well would be extreme cool, the triple which only the best of the true champions can achieve :lol:

 

[yaco]

Re:

I really wonder what Sky (the television network, not the team) thinks about all this. I imagine as has been stated before that there are some legal "outs" in their sponsorship deal.

Right now when cycling fans (casual or otherwise) see a Sky jersey they don't think "Tour de France winner/cool TV shows," they think "Froome unresolved doping case." That's gotta translate into a seriously negative Q score.

Can you provide any proof that Sky is suffering financially from their association with Team Sky ? You may have a case if Sky withdraw their sponsorship at the ed of the year, although it will hardly be definitive seeing Sky is being taken over by another company.

 

[yaco]

I doubt any hearing will take place before June at the earliest and it could even be as late as August - I chuckle when people about 'fairness' yet in the same breath DEMAND the Froome case be pushed through quickly.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

I doubt any hearing will take place before June at the earliest and it could even be as late as August - I chuckle when people about 'fairness' yet in the same breath DEMAND the Froome case be pushed through quickly.

It's a simple case, the only reason why it takes so long is because rules and laws have always existed to protect criminals. As long as they have the money of course.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

lashing out? sounds like someone is getting frustrated! the truth is no one knows for sure when or if froome is going to get a ban, it does look more likely now that it could be late april or even during the Giro; if froome gets to ride the Giro and keep any result but gets banned for the tour (he may not even podium) would that make you happier?

Whatever you're talking about, it's not the Disrepute clause, that's for sure...

I think you might need to relax and slow down a little.

I tend to agree that Lappartient is making more and more noise about this. I’m sure there are background discussions ongoing. You appear a little caught up with your nose buried in the rulebook to see what’s playing out in the real world.

It would not be unusual for intervention of some degree whether within in the rules or not. The UCI may broker a deal with Sky for Froome not to ride. We don’t know yet and neither do you. But the likihood of intervention of some degree increases the closer we get to the Giro.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Froome is playing a clever game here, he will have been well versed on the rules and is playing for time so that he can serve his ban at least after the Giro and if possible after the tour.

Winning the Giro and the Tour and the system as well would be extreme cool, the triple which only the best of the true champions can achieve :lol:

The Dawg is on for the Quintuple!!!

Tdf, Vuelta, Giro, Tdf...

Last but most certainly not least shafting anti-doping an pro-cycling's reputation right where it hurts

 

[Blanco]

He doesn't want to lose Vegni's money, that's why he's stalling...

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

From CN's report on Lappartient' s comments - case still at LADS:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-unlikely-to-be-resolved-before-giro-ditalia/

However Lappartient confirmed that the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal had been consulted but only on procedural matters.

This is the part I don’t understand. If the Tribunal is being consulted, doesn’t that mean a judge has been appointed? How else would they consult? Do they have people on call for consultation? Can they ask any of the judges about procedures even if that judge hasn't been assigned to the case? Assuming no, and a judge has been appointed, that judge presumably has requested documents prior to a hearing.

“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?

Hilarious. We've been through this. Shown it's BS. And now here it is repeating like a stale cheese sandwich.

Because you put the stale cheese sandwich out on the kitchen counter, and asked someone to please come and take a bite.

I doubt any hearing will take place before June at the earliest and it could even be as late as August

I doubt very much that it will take that long. If the case is not resolved before the Tour, the rules that allow backdating will almost certainly come into play. Morgan knows this.

I chuckle when people [talk] about 'fairness' yet in the same breath DEMAND the Froome case be pushed through quickly.

Yes, Lappartient changed his tune. A couple of weeks ago he really was demanding that this case be resolved soon. Now, in this latest interview, he’s telling everyone to be patient. What’s really weird, as I just mentioned, is that UCI seems to be the side that’s causing the delay.

Edit: Here's what I see in the rules:

2: Before referring a case to the Tribunal, the UCI shall offer the Defendant an acceptance of Consequences in accordance with Article 8.4 ADR.

This seems to imply that the UCI did propose a ban.

The Tribunal is composed of at least 4 members, appointed by the UCI Management Committee.

So if the UCI is consulting on procedural matters, they must be communicating with one of the judges. It would seem to make sense that it would be one previously assigned to the case.

14.3: Once the case has been referred to the Tribunal, the proceedings are conducted by the Single Judge who has been assigned the case

I see nothing in the rules that would allow communication with one of the judges before the case is actually referred to the Tribunal.

16.1: The Single Judge shall set a time limit of at least 15 days for the Defendant to submit an answer containing:
a) a statement of defence;
b) any exhibits or specification of other evidence upon which the Defendant intends to rely, including witness statements and/or expert reports;
c) the relief or remedy sought by the Defendant.

2. If the Defendant fails to submit its answer within the set deadline, the Single Judge may nevertheless proceed with the case and render his Judgment.

This seems to be where the case stands now. From previous cases, it’s clear that defendants can, and frequently do, ask for more time to prepare evidence.

Further edit: This from VN confirms that a judge has been appointed and is gathering documents:

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.

Also, on the delays:

In the Gazzetta interview, Lappartient also signaled that the UCI legal department is being meticulous in its preparation for the case in order to avoid a possible future appeal to any decision.

So maybe UCI figures an appeal is more likely from a rider with very large resources, so has to do more to try to avoid that possibility than they would in other cases.

http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/lappartient-froomes-salbutamol-case-likely-wont-be-resolved-before-giro_460202#EYLyhQXJ4X6E044k.99

 

[ferryman]

@ 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!

 

[TourOfSardinia]

my 2¢ conjecture:
CF gets to start the Giro in Israel/Palestine
The day they transfer
his ban miraculous arrives.
Everybody happy.

 

[Robert5091]

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

 

[glassmoon]

Re:

@ 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.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

@ 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..

 

[Robert5091]

He will walk..

26% agree with you! -
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33768&start=900

 

[rick james]

Re:

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

 

[S2Sturges]

Re: Re:

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.....