Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[red_flanders]

ASO have n't paid Froome 2 million Euro and can claim it's for his own safety - touché!

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.

My comment is about incentive. RCS clearly wants Froome there, they're not interested in rescinding anything.

 

[masking_agent]

Re:

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:

I bet deep down Geraint is smiling too

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

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

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.

Boonen never broke any UCI rules, Froome did.

 

[rick james]

Not yet he hasn't, he's had an abnormal reading

 

[macbindle]

Keep clutching that straw...

 

[rick james]

until he's been charged that what it is

 

[53*11]

Re:

Not yet he hasn't, he's had an abnormal reading

very, very abnormal reading if all he did was use his inhaler :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[miguelindurain111]

ASO denies reports that it would keep Froome out of Tour de France if Salbutamol case remains unresolved.

:lol:

https://twitter.com/velonews/status/977205241857720320?s=20

 

[Poursuivant]

I think dragging it out until Giro is passed is one thing, but until TDF is another matter, I can see Froome getting a ban around June time.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

ASO denies reports that it would keep Froome out of Tour de France if Salbutamol case remains unresolved.

:lol:

https://twitter.com/velonews/status/977205241857720320?s=20

Did you read the VN article?

ASO's quote was indeed amusing but perhaps not so reassuring for the fanboys:

"ASO officials made it clear on Friday that the report was untrue, or at the very least, the leak was unauthorized"

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

ASO denies reports that it would keep Froome out of Tour de France if Salbutamol case remains unresolved.

:lol:

https://twitter.com/velonews/status/977205241857720320?s=20

Did you read the VN article?

ASO's quote was indeed amusing but perhaps not so reassuring for the fanboys:

"ASO officials made it clear on Friday that the report was untrue, or at the very least, the leak was unauthorized"

How about an ASO statement like this:

"Yes, it's true. We authorized the leak and asked our janitor to call that Australian website. Monsieur Prudhomme is going through the last details with our lawyers regarding the Froome affaire. Thank you."

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

They are indeed untrustworthy if it took this long to catch this donkey.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

They are indeed untrustworthy if it took this long to catch this donkey.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Apparently L'Equipe also reporting there should be progress in AAF case before Giro starts and if ASO deny Froome entry to the TdF then Team Sky will challenge that in the civil courts and claim damages. Again, is anyone surprised?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Apparently L'Equipe also reporting there should be progress in AAF case before Giro starts and if ASO deny Froome entry to the TdF then Team Sky will challenge that in the civil courts and claim damages. Again, is anyone surprised?

Civil courts are slow and unpredictable. But predictable in one regards: they will bounce the appeal back to the agreed body, the Chambre. Which is exactly what happened in the Boonen case...keep dreaming, though.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Apparently L'Equipe also reporting there should be progress in AAF case before Giro starts and if ASO deny Froome entry to the TdF then Team Sky will challenge that in the civil courts and claim damages. Again, is anyone surprised?

Nope. Predicted some time ago but was assured here that ASO's riles were too solid for this now.

 

[Robert5091]

Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Apparently L'Equipe also reporting there should be progress in AAF case before Giro starts and if ASO deny Froome entry to the TdF then Team Sky will challenge that in the civil courts and claim damages. Again, is anyone surprised?

Civil courts are slow and unpredictable. But predictable in one regards: they will bounce the appeal back to the agreed body, the Chambre. Which is exactly what happened in the Boonen case...keep dreaming, though.

Dreaming? I'm just passing on what the L'Equipe article says (before CN puts a translation up)

But you keep deluding yourself, dude. Shame they don't teach being objective in journalism school any more. Is it cosy in the snug bar with Walsh and Syed?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

Yes, indeedy :razz:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening

 

[Bolder]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

Yes, indeedy :razz:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening

Not desperate to attack the procedure. It's sound legal strategy and what a defendant would expect of a . As a larger point, if you're going to live by the rule of law, the law has to be followed by both sides. I always laugh when I hear about people getting off on a "technicality," then it turns out that the technicality was something like a refusal to hand over evidence or someone broke the chain of custody. What if that was you?

The Massachusetts crime lab scandal resulted in 8,000 convictions being thrown out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/12/28/massachusetts-prosecutors-to-throw-out-8000-convictions-in-second-drug-lab-scandal/?utm_term=.b8cb1149c612

So if it turns out that an anti-doping agency didn't follow the rules, then yes, the case should be tossed. I don't particularly care if that means that Froome gets off.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

Yes, indeedy :razz:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening

Maybe that's what Lappy was talking about, Lads asking the tribunal if it's OK to give Froome's gang the other samples and the judge said no. Anyway, if this report is true I'm thinking he might be looking forward to a proper ban.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

Yes, indeedy :razz:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening

Sounds like the Dawg is going down a well trodden path. A couple of years back he was telling the UCI test more on Tiede, now tests are not viable, lol! :lol:

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

Yes, indeedy :razz:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening

Not desperate to attack the procedure. It's sound legal strategy and what a defendant would expect of a . As a larger point, if you're going to live by the rule of law, the law has to be followed by both sides. I always laugh when I hear about people getting off on a "technicality," then it turns out that the technicality was something like a refusal to hand over evidence or someone broke the chain of custody. What if that was you?

The Massachusetts crime lab scandal resulted in 8,000 convictions being thrown out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/12/28/massachusetts-prosecutors-to-throw-out-8000-convictions-in-second-drug-lab-scandal/?utm_term=.b8cb1149c612

So if it turns out that an anti-doping agency didn't follow the rules, then yes, the case should be tossed. I don't particularly care if that means that Froome gets off.

Nothing to disagree with there

But L'Equipe are saying that Morgan has asked for ALL of Froome's samples from the Vuelta (i.e. including all the clean ones) "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted"

That's just a fishing expedition, right?

Or did someone "refuse to hand over evidence or break the chain of custody" on all of Froome's samples from the Vuelta - including the ones that didn't trip the wire?

Attacking procedure is indeed, as you say, and as I've pointed out many times, a valid line of defence (and it's worth pointing out because some on here are solely focused on the potential scientific/medical defences)

But courts knock back fishing expeditions all the time for a reason. Otherwise, to take this case as an example, the Dawg will have won 25 TdFs before a judgement is laid down

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Twitter is quoting L'Equipe as reporting 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This comes across as a desperate move by Mike Morgan. Last throw of the dice. He must know that if Froome's defence establishes that doping controls are indeed not trustworthy then anti-doping becomes a pointless irrelevance. And pro cycling becomes the Wild West take what you want and hope you don't die before you cross the finish line

Worth noting that with this legal/procedural play Froome and his lawyer are willing to kill anti-doping and pro cycling to get him off the charge. Which is very different to proving his innocence via the scientific/medical route. Is anyone even surprised?

Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical!

Yes, indeedy :razz:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening

Sounds like the Dawg is going down a well trodden path. A couple of years back he was telling the UCI test more on Tiede, now tests are not viable, lol! :lol:

Our heroes love playing the never failed a test card

Until they fail a test

Then the whole testing system is worthless and corrupt

:razz: