Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1162 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
bambino said:
thehog said:
bambino said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is '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 is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
And what on earth would they do with around 20 urine samples? Take to "independent" lab for analysis? That would be the king of all delay games with probably huge $-sign attached to it. Froome has soon spent his Giro appearance with the defence...
No. What it appears he asked for was the results of “all” samples for all riders in some vain hope to prove his result wasn’t abnormal.
For Vuelta or the stage? All samples of all riders in Vuelta would complete nonsense.
There is only 4 tests per stage.
 
Wiggo's Package said:
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is '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.'
Yes, of course, my bad. They would give Froome the results of the tests on the samples, but not necessarily access to the samples themselves. I'm not sure what the legal status of those samples is, though. When a rider gives a sample, does he sign away any rights to possession or use of the samples? And if he does, is it possible that that rule could conflict with civil law? I don't know a lot about this, but my understanding is that in the U.S. patients generally are not considered to be the owners of tissues they donate, but that they may be able to sign something that gives them rights as a condition of donating the tissue. Maybe some lawyer here knows more about this?

But I'm still not sure what Morgan is trying to accomplish. Does he want to retest Froome's samples (I'm pretty sure that even he realizes he can't gain access to the samples of any other rider), with the aim of showing the tests were faulty? Even if some other lab came up with different results, Froome's team would then have to show that there was some specific fault in the WADA lab that resulted in the difference. I can't imagine that would go anywhere, though it might get the case dragged out past not simply the Giro, but the Tour as well.

All that said, if Froome had some drug-interaction hypothesis, he might make a valid claim that his samples be tested to verify the presence of that drug in his system. But in that case, I think WADA would retain and test the samples, though Froome could send an observer, just as is done with B sample tests.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Merckx index said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is '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.'
Yes, of course, my bad. They would give Froome the results of the tests on the samples, but not necessarily access to the samples themselves. I'm not sure what the legal status of those samples is, though. When a rider gives a sample, does he sign away any rights to possession or use of the samples? And if he does, is it possible that that rule could conflict with civil law? I don't know a lot about this, but my understanding is that in the U.S. patients generally are not considered to be the owners of tissues they donate, but that they may be able to sign something that gives them rights as a condition of donating the tissue. Maybe some lawyer here knows more about this?

But I'm still not sure what Morgan is trying to accomplish. Does he want to retest Froome's samples (I'm pretty sure that even he realizes he can't gain access to the samples of any other rider), with the aim of showing the tests were faulty? Even if some other lab came up with different results, Froome's team would then have to show that there was some specific fault in the WADA lab that resulted in the difference. I can't imagine that would go anywhere, though it might get the case dragged out past not simply the Giro, but the Tour as well.

All that said, if Froome had some drug-interaction hypothesis, he might make a valid claim that his samples be tested to verify the presence of that drug in his system. But in that case, I think WADA would retain and test the samples, though Froome could send an observer, just as is done with B sample tests.
I don't have a definitive answer but that LADS refused to release Froome's samples strongly suggests athletes sign away ownership of samples when they agree to be tested

As to what Morgan is trying to accomplish by requesting the actual samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted", I remain of the view that it's a fishing expedition. By that I mean Morgan doesn't know specifically what he's looking for but he hopes his experts might find something if given the chance. And as you say it would have the added bonus of further deferring the ADT's ruling while Froome's experts reviewed the samples

So from a legal perspective I'm not surprised the samples request has been knocked back. Courts tend to take a dim view of fishing expeditions. But weren't there recent revelations that the latest sample bottles aren't secure? That could be a more specific reason for Morgan to throw doubt on whether the controls are trustworthy...?
 
WRT Froome, the Vuelta and Peter Cossins's 'reporting' of Giles Simon's story in L'Équipe at the weekend. Here's what Simon actually wrote:
Selon nos information, ils ont aussi demandé à l'UCI de reprendre tous les échantillons de Froome collectés sur la Vuelta pour refaire d'autres tests et rechercher d'autres paramètres que ceux qui one été analysés. Leur but? Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables.
Which I read as saying Froome's people have asked the UCI to retest all his Vuelta samples, looking at new parameters. Which is not quite what Cossins said it said. The outcome - Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables. - is close to what Cossins claimed, to demonstrate that the controls, as practiced, are not reliable - but suggesting Froome wanted the actual samples does rather oversell the story.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Wiggo's Package said:
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.
It's no so much ASO's rules, as general sport rules. All licence holders agree to an appeal procedure, which is CAS (except, in this specific case, it's the French Chambre Arbitrale du Sport). Boonen's Quick Step team tried the civil action route, going to a court in Nanterre, it heard the legal arguments over a couple of days and then threw the case out, saying it was not the proper authority, the Chambre was.

There are times when civil courts have ignored the role of CAS (look at Spain at that bloody Roberto Heras case, which I'd love to see properly explained in English one day) and there are certain areas where civil courts trump CAS (accidents or violence during games/races can go to civil court) but by and large, with the basic day to day rules, civil courts accept the agreed role of CAS.

Now yes, we could get a replay of the Boonen case: ASO could try and claim the moral high ground (or, as was claimed in the Boonen case, cave to political pressure) and make a public show of banning Froome and Sky could try and claim the moral high ground by taking a civil action, but at the end of the day, the case ends up in the Chambre and all the rights of an athlete set out in the Valverde case get rolled out one more time and Froome gets cleared to ride the race. Everyone wins the PR game.

In the Boonen case, the Nanterre court threw the case out on the Tuesday before the Tour's Monaco start and Quick Step immediately requested a hearing at the Chambre, who had a judge in place by the Thursday and a decision on the Friday (the eve of the Tour).

Final lists of riders are submitted when, 72 hours before the race start?
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Italian press claiming that Ulrich Haas has been appointed as the Anti-Doping Tribunal judge

http://www.sportfair.it/2018/03/caso-froome-giudice-tribunale-antidoping/708546/
Il caso Froome scuote il ciclismo, Team Sky furioso con l’UCI: le indiscrezioni sul giudice che verrà nominato spaventano il britannico
"The Froome Case is shaking up the sport of cycling, Team Sky furious with the UCI, the rumors about the judge who will be named are scaring the British rider"
Essendo il Tribunale Antidoping dell’Uci monocratico, composto cioè da un solo giudice scelto tra i 5 nomi a disposizione che ne fanno parte, pare che la scelta sia ricaduta su Ulrich Haas, uno dei padri del Codice mondiale antidoping.
"Since the UCI's Anti-Doping Tribunal consists of a single judge, chosen from among five available, it seems that the choice has fallen upon Ulrich Haas, one of the fathers of the World Anti-Doping code."

Has it really taken all this time just to decide who the ADT judge will be? If so that makes me wonder if Froome challenged the UCI's initial choice.
All that seems to be saying is that, of the choice between Helle Qvortrup Bachmann, Ulrich Haas, Emily Wisnosky, Andreas Zagklis, Julien Zylberstein, one name stands out: Haas. And then explains why they think Haas's name stands out ("We know *** all about the other four names but we've heard of Haas.")
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
The last honorable lawyer died with Cicero.

Most lawyers are awful human beings... the dregs of society.[/quote]


are you trying to annoy the armchair lawyers in the clinic?!!
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
WRT Froome, the Vuelta and Peter Cossins's 'reporting' of Giles Simon's story in L'Équipe at the weekend. Here's what Simon actually wrote:
Selon nos information, ils ont aussi demandé à l'UCI de reprendre tous les échantillons de Froome collectés sur la Vuelta pour refaire d'autres tests et rechercher d'autres paramètres que ceux qui one été analysés. Leur but? Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables.
Which I read as saying Froome's people have asked the UCI to retest all his Vuelta samples, looking at new parameters. Which is not quite what Cossins said it said. The outcome - Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables. - is close to what Cossins claimed, to demonstrate that the controls, as practiced, are not reliable - but suggesting Froome wanted the actual samples does rather oversell the story.
Thanks, that's helpful

Glad I used the word "apparently" when quoting Cossins' on Twitter - I had a feeling we could be in Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson in a Tokyo hotel territory
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
fmk_RoI said:
WRT Froome, the Vuelta and Peter Cossins's 'reporting' of Giles Simon's story in L'Équipe at the weekend. Here's what Simon actually wrote:
Selon nos information, ils ont aussi demandé à l'UCI de reprendre tous les échantillons de Froome collectés sur la Vuelta pour refaire d'autres tests et rechercher d'autres paramètres que ceux qui one été analysés. Leur but? Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables.
Which I read as saying Froome's people have asked the UCI to retest all his Vuelta samples, looking at new parameters. Which is not quite what Cossins said it said. The outcome - Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables. - is close to what Cossins claimed, to demonstrate that the controls, as practiced, are not reliable - but suggesting Froome wanted the actual samples does rather oversell the story.
Yes, that's what it means, that Froome challenges the validity of the antidoping test system itself, and his lawyers want the UCI to re-do certain tests according to his own criteria. It doesn't mean Mike Morgan wants physical custody of the samples in order to do independent testing, because nobody is allowed to do that.
Conceptually there is some similarity to UCI v. Isabella Moreira Lacerda, in that she argued the whole biopassport blood testing system is fundamentally invalid because "based on academic assumptions" :

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Lacerda

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/40/53/UCIADT03.2017UCIv.MsIsabellaMoreiraLacerda_Neutral.pdf

She got banned for four years.
Wiggo's Package said:
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?
Yeah, all-expenses-paid fishing holiday to the Yellow Sea of urinalysis laboratories. Kind of a waste of money on the testing, and big waste of time, unless there is in the first place some well-formulated defense, that depends on the whole historical context. The 'B sample' was really all the re-testing the defendant is entitled to.'B' confirmed 'A' and that fact stands alone, in the simple case of detection of a substance above a certain limit. The defense in principle can request any kind of additional testing that they want, but UCI doesn't have to agree to it. And even if the UCI did agree, the Single Judge of the ADT doesn't have to admit new evidence. This move by Mike Morgan suggests they never settled upon any purely physiological explanation for the salbutamol, so try to discredit the lab test itself. It's not surprising that the UCI would refuse to play along, and if Froome has got Ulrich Haas as the Judge, he is also likely to take a dim view of this whole defense approach
Yep, Morgan's now clarified request is still a fishing expedition

And as you say he'll get nowhere with LADS/ADT

It might gain traction with the CAS panel but then the Dawg will have been banned
 
Re: Re:

Froomster said:
Merckx index said:
aphronesis said:
It's hard to see how the inhaler argument holds unless there was a Sky drone over Froome for every stage and they can release all footage to be tediously pored over and counted for inhaler puffs. Along with out of race man servant log entries.
Sure, that's going to be a problem. He could have made entries, but it would be hard to prove they weren't manufactured after the fact, and even if they weren't, one could argue that Froome might easily have forgotten some puffs he made during the race. But--this is a question for someone with asthma--since the inhaler delivers a measured amount of salbutamol, and there is a known amount of doses in the inhaler initially, couldn't he record the before and after amounts? Still would have to depend on Froome's being honest, but at least in theory there would be a reliable record of the amount of puffs taken.
As someone with real asthma for over 40 years, I can tell you that unless you're suffering a severe attack (like, hospitalisation severe), normally 1 to 2 puffs fixes you up and once you've had 3 or 4 puffs max, you don't get any further relief from more puffs. The airways are open as much as they're going to get from the inhaler.

In any event, most of the medication is deposited on the lung and brochial tissues and broken down right there. I find it extremely hard to believe that any number of puffs of an inhaler could cause you to excrete twice the allowable limit in your urine. The chances that an inhaler was the method of administration are vanishingly small, IMO.
Well that just shows you how variable illness can be. In my experience with Ventolin, one or two puffs does little except for a slight wheeze, even three or four and constant wheezing requires regular Ventolin. I agree that a lot of Ventolin is usually ineffective without other drugs but it can moderate or control the wheezing in the short term. 200 puffs for a chronic asthmatic is nothing over a period of time but that period of time could be two weeks up to a month maybe for severe wheezing. It all depends on the severity of the condition but these days most asthmatics are also using preventers and even Froome has acknowledged that. I agree that that much Ventolin in a small time frame could not have come from a puffer and stayed in his system and he wouldn't have been in a condition to race if he needed that much anyway. The whole scenario from Froome's statements is unconvincing and unlikely.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
fmk_RoI said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
fmk_RoI said:
El Pistolero said:
The last honorable lawyer died with Cicero. Most lawyers are awful human beings... the dregs of society.
Believing in the honour of the man who conducted the extra-judicial assassination of the Catiline conspirators...that's sweet.
Have to agree with FMK on that one
There'll be letters, you watch...
Mike Morgan would be more respectable if he had some real 'skin in the game', because in a sense he has already won, by landing Froome as a client, he gets paid and gets another high-profile athlete on his resumé.
Like if the proposition were reformulated:

- If you win, Froome walks free
- If you lose, we decapitate you, cut off your hands, and nail your severed head and hands to l'Arc de Triomphe for the Champs-Élysées stage. Still interested in taking the case, Mike ?
Morgan could have taken the Froome case on a no win no fee basis like Addleshaws did when they backed Berezovsky against Abramovich. That was an epic self-inflicted maiming

But chances of Morgan acting for Froome no win no fee must be exactly zero. He's probably making the Dawg pay up front these tax free Monaco types are not always trustworthy
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
WRT Froome, the Vuelta and Peter Cossins's 'reporting' of Giles Simon's story in L'Équipe at the weekend. Here's what Simon actually wrote:
Selon nos information, ils ont aussi demandé à l'UCI de reprendre tous les échantillons de Froome collectés sur la Vuelta pour refaire d'autres tests et rechercher d'autres paramètres que ceux qui one été analysés. Leur but? Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables.
Which I read as saying Froome's people have asked the UCI to retest all his Vuelta samples, looking at new parameters. Which is not quite what Cossins said it said. The outcome - Démontrer que les contrôles tels qu'ils sont pratiqués ne sont pas fiables. - is close to what Cossins claimed, to demonstrate that the controls, as practiced, are not reliable - but suggesting Froome wanted the actual samples does rather oversell the story.
Your translation seems correct, but it doesn't make sense to me. Taken at face value, "pour refaire d'autres tests et rechercher d'autres paramètres que ceux qui one été analysés" would suggest they were looking for some new factor, other than salbutamol. E.g., if they wanted to confirm that Froome had some drug in his system that affected salbutamol excretion, they might want to analyze his samples for that drug (even then, though, print outs from the original mass spec analysis would probably have all the needed information). But this is not consistent with the "purpose" of demonstrating that the controls are "unreliable". That would simply involve reanalyzing for salbutamol. The paragraph would make much more sense to me if, instead of "leur but" the first passage had been followed by something like "de plus", i.e., in addition to looking for new parameters, we want to demonstrate that the controls are not reliable.

This passage does seem to indicate that Froome's team is not calling for an independent testing of the samples (which I very much doubt would be allowed). "Reprendre" seems to indicate that the want UCI to be in charge of the retesting.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
fmk_RoI said:
El Pistolero said:
The last honorable lawyer died with Cicero.

Most lawyers are awful human beings... the dregs of society.
Believing in the honour of the man who conducted the extra-judicial assassination of the Catiline conspirators...that's sweet.
If only they did the same with drug cheats.

Figuratively speaking of course.

So yes, the last honorable lawyer.

Likewise, Augustus made a smart decision to proscribe Cicero.
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
fmk_RoI said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
fmk_RoI said:
El Pistolero said:
The last honorable lawyer died with Cicero. Most lawyers are awful human beings... the dregs of society.
Believing in the honour of the man who conducted the extra-judicial assassination of the Catiline conspirators...that's sweet.
Have to agree with FMK on that one
There'll be letters, you watch...
Mike Morgan would be more respectable if he had some real 'skin in the game', because in a sense he has already won, by landing Froome as a client, he gets paid and gets another high-profile athlete on his resumé.
Like if the proposition were reformulated:

- If you win, Froome walks free
- If you lose, we decapitate you, cut off your hands, and nail your severed head and hands to l'Arc de Triomphe for the Champs-Élysées stage. Still interested in taking the case, Mike ?
He has a lot of "skin in the game," in the sense that if he secures a positive outcome (no pun intended) for Froome then he'll build his business. If Froome is taken down, hard, then his reputation takes a hit.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Bolder said:
He has a lot of "skin in the game," in the sense that if he secures a positive outcome (no pun intended) for Froome then he'll build his business. If Froome is taken down, hard, then his reputation takes a hit.
Not sure that's correct

By taking on Froome's case and fighting damn hard for his client Morgan is cementing his position as the go to guy for athletes who've tripped the wire

No lawyer who litigates regularly wins all their cases. And even when a case is lost getting a reduced sanction for a client can be seen as a win

So if for example the Dawg gets a ban of less than 2 years and it's not back dated so he keeps his Giro/TdF results from this year that would be perceived as a good result for Morgan. Less so perhaps for his client
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Just stumbled across this from the Dawg talking about Wiggo only 18 months ago gotta love Team Sky's Brits Don't Dope gang playing the ethical card...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/27/chris-froome-demands-uci-and-wada-address-abuse-of-tue-system/

'Froome said in a statement released on his personal Twitter account “I take my position in the sport very seriously and I know that I have to not only abide by the rules, but also go above and beyond that to set a good example both morally and ethically,” said Froome, who was speaking for the first time since he and Wiggins had their medical data hacked by Fancy Bears.

“It is clear that the TUE system is open to abuse and I believe that this is something that the UCI and Wada needs to urgently address. At the same time there are athletes who not only abide by the rules that are in place, but also those of fair play. I have never had a ‘win-at-all-costs’ approach in this regard,” he said. “I am not looking to push the boundaries of the rules. I believe that this is something that athletes need to take responsibility for themselves, until more stringent protocols can be put in place.” '
 
Re:

Froome said in a statement released on his personal Twitter account “I take my position in the sport very seriously and I know that I have to not only abide by the rules, but also go above and beyond that to set a good example both morally and ethically,” said Froome, who was speaking for the first time since he and Wiggins had their medical data hacked by Fancy Bears.
Says the man who insists on racing while his positive is unresolved, because “the rules allow it” and "other riders did it".

“It is clear that the TUE system is open to abuse and I believe that this is something that the UCI and Wada needs to urgently address. At the same time there are athletes who not only abide by the rules that are in place, but also those of fair play. I have never had a ‘win-at-all-costs’ approach in this regard,” he said. “I am not looking to push the boundaries of the rules. I believe that this is something that athletes need to take responsibility for themselves, until more stringent protocols can be put in place.” '
Says the man who hired a lawyer known for getting off guilty clients via technicalities.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Froome said in a statement released on his personal Twitter account “I take my position in the sport very seriously and I know that I have to not only abide by the rules, but also go above and beyond that to set a good example both morally and ethically,” said Froome, who was speaking for the first time since he and Wiggins had their medical data hacked by Fancy Bears.
Says the man who insists on racing while his positive is unresolved, because “the rules allow it” and "other riders did it".

“It is clear that the TUE system is open to abuse and I believe that this is something that the UCI and Wada needs to urgently address. At the same time there are athletes who not only abide by the rules that are in place, but also those of fair play. I have never had a ‘win-at-all-costs’ approach in this regard,” he said. “I am not looking to push the boundaries of the rules. I believe that this is something that athletes need to take responsibility for themselves, until more stringent protocols can be put in place.” '
Says the man who hired a lawyer known for getting off guilty clients via technicalities.
c'mon merck cut the kool aid gang some slack will ya?! they cant deal with those kind of inconvenient facts and logic
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS