• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1163 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
News on Friday:

"Chris Froome's case is now in the hands of the International Cycling Union's (UCI) anti-doping tribunal to decide the fate of the four-time winner of the Tour de France after his "abnormal" control of the Vuelta, announced Friday the newspaper Le Monde.

The case left the walls of the UCI where it was analysed by the competent service of the International Federation (Legal anti-doping services, LADS) to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, an independent structure created in 2015, says the French daily explaining that the Legal Service (LADS) therefore considered that there was no objective data to lead to a dismissal.

The name of the sole judge responsible for deciding is known. Germany's Ulrich Haas, a regular at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), will decide on the future of Froome, according to the daily which confirms the recent news of the newspaper L'Equipe.

Despite this progress, the question mark on the date of the judgment remains. Probably not before the departure of the Giro, the first major goal of Froome in 2018, scheduled for May 4 in Jerusalem. And maybe not even before the Tour de France (July 7th), another major rendezvous for the Englishman who is running for a fifth success (equal record) in the main race of the calendar.

According to Le Monde, the various hypotheses to explain the abnormal concentration of salbutamol (an anti-asthmatic drug with certain anabolic properties) in the urine of Froome during its control of the Vuelta, on September 7, were rejected by the LADS. The defense of Froome has kept only one strategy, the questioning of the test and its limit (1000 ng / ml), a ceiling flattened by the English rider who had twice the concentration allowed for this substance .

This questioning of the World Code inevitably concerns the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the guarantor of the rules. Its managing director Olivier Niggli, quoted by the French daily, said in this regard that "the AMA will provide the UCI with all the elements they need for the test itself".

As for the limit of 1000 ng / ml, it is considered incontestable by the medical director of the AMA, Olivier Rabin: "the rule is established for a long time; The threshold has not changed and has already passed before the Arbitral Tribunal of the sport."

Meanwhile, Froome continues to train on the slopes of the Teide volcano in Tenerife. Before returning to competition at the Tour des Alpes (April 16 to 20), last step for him before the Giro."

https://www.lesechos.fr/sport/omnisport/afp-00653700-cyclisme-le-cas-froome-dans-les-mains-du-tribunal-antidopage-de-luci-2165654.php

I can't see Froome getting less than a year, it should be over with the clown's career but not before he bags a Giro and who knows, maybe even another Tour.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
So LADS reject Froome's defense but he isn't banned? Is this normal, UCI/LADS rejecting a defense or in other words "ruling" someone guilty, but leaving it to another institution to pass the sentence?

Rules state that he should've been handed an "acceptance of consequences" from Lads. Basically he was found guilty by LADS. If Froome does not accept it, which seems to be the situation, the case is sent to the Tribunal which will decide if he is indeed guilty and what the sanction will be.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
LaFlorecita said:
So LADS reject Froome's defense but he isn't banned? Is this normal, UCI/LADS rejecting a defense or in other words "ruling" someone guilty, but leaving it to another institution to pass the sentence?

Rules state that he should've been handed an "acceptance of consequences" from Lads. Basically he was found guilty by LADS. If Froome does not accept it, which seems to be the situation, the case is sent to the Tribunal which will decide if he is indeed guilty and what the sanction will be.
Seems silly to me that he has been found guilty by an official board yet can continue to race until the CAS decision.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Rollthedice said:
LaFlorecita said:
So LADS reject Froome's defense but he isn't banned? Is this normal, UCI/LADS rejecting a defense or in other words "ruling" someone guilty, but leaving it to another institution to pass the sentence?

Rules state that he should've been handed an "acceptance of consequences" from Lads. Basically he was found guilty by LADS. If Froome does not accept it, which seems to be the situation, the case is sent to the Tribunal which will decide if he is indeed guilty and what the sanction will be.
Seems silly to me that he has been found guilty by an official board yet can continue to race until the CAS decision.

This is typical of how things are done.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
LaFlorecita said:
Rollthedice said:
LaFlorecita said:
So LADS reject Froome's defense but he isn't banned? Is this normal, UCI/LADS rejecting a defense or in other words "ruling" someone guilty, but leaving it to another institution to pass the sentence?

Rules state that he should've been handed an "acceptance of consequences" from Lads. Basically he was found guilty by LADS. If Froome does not accept it, which seems to be the situation, the case is sent to the Tribunal which will decide if he is indeed guilty and what the sanction will be.
Seems silly to me that he has been found guilty by an official board yet can continue to race until the CAS decision.

This is typical of how things are done.
Do you have an example of a similar situation? Before LADS existed, the national federation of a cyclist would make a decision (ban/no ban) and then there was an opportunity to appeal to TAS/CAS. In the meantime, the national fed's decision would stand.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
I bet DB has already moved on to the next project.

Does he have any frenchies that can win the Tour anytime soon?

That might give the team some "air".

He did "promise" a french winner, before Froome sat too steadily on the crown.

They can't be focusing the team and its effforts around Froome now.

Even DB - the father of marginal hipocrisy knows he can't squeeze anymore out a that tree.

Froome's all by himself, however this ends.

I don't blame Froome for trying to stay in the game as long as he can.
Looking at history; jumping to confessions early on, wont give you a job/income within cycling anytime sooner.
As long as there is hypothetical chance of him walking, he has to bet on that as well.
Withdrawing voluntarily might make him a martyr with his fan base. But does anyone remember/respect a top guilty martyr?

UCI may be compelled by todays news to suspend Froome. But i think they might offer SKY to do it themselves first.

edit/ addition:
Question is, can DB morally suspend Froome with all the water that's gone under the bridge -without poising himself for public exposure (which he seems to do anything to avoid atm) adding huge backlash prolonging the whole SKYfail saga?
 
Re: Re:

MikeS369 said:
rick james said:
El Pistolero said:
Why do criminals get so much protection by the rules? Not only in sports, but in real life as well. It sickens me deeply.
again, lol

Do you ever add anything of substance? All your comments seem to be nothing more than a 12yo popping off.
Lol, the clinic isn’t interested in substance, it’s all about shits and giggles