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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Baldinger said:And now the tweet has been deleted.
Baldinger said:And now the tweet has been deleted.
CTQ said:https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21
Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.
Rollthedice said:CTQ said:https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21
Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.
Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.
CTQ said:Rollthedice said:CTQ said:https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21
Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.
Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.
some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS
.Koronin said:CTQ said:Rollthedice said:CTQ said:https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21
Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.
Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.
some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS
The way two of the write-ups I read stated it was that the UCI rejected Froome's argument and has sent the case to the tribunal.
CTQ said:.Koronin said:CTQ said:Rollthedice said:CTQ said:https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21
Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.
Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.
some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS
The way two of the write-ups I read stated it was that the UCI rejected Froome's argument and has sent the case to the tribunal.
i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. 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.
still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.
That seems to be right. I think this case would inevitably move to this stage. Once the case became public it would always have to be settled by a full tribunal regardless of what evidence Froome provided.CTQ said:i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. 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.
still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.
Parker said:That seems to be right. I think this case would inevitably move to this stage. Once the case became public it would always have to be settled by a full tribunal regardless of what evidence Froome provided.CTQ said:i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. 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.
still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.
I said somewhere up this thread that even if Froome had 100% certain evidence* of his innocence that this would have to go to a tribunal due to its public profile.Koronin said:Parker said:That seems to be right. I think this case would inevitably move to this stage. Once the case became public it would always have to be settled by a full tribunal regardless of what evidence Froome provided.CTQ said:i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. 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.
still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.
That sounds right as to the stage it's at. I agree that once this became public this was a definite outcome.
"I have no evidence that he is deliberately delaying things. He is trying to defend a number of arguments, it's his right," the UCI president David Lappartient said in the Le Monde report. "I do not see what he would gain from waiting, because if it is to race and be sanctioned after, for what reason?"
Two points.Merckx index said:As CTQ says, there is a very clear path laid out in the rules:
Positive test - LADS - Acceptance of Consequences - appoint judge - Tribunal - hearing - decision.
What is remarkable is that till now no public story, not even the interview with Lappartient, has pointed this out, then told us unambiguously exactly where in the process Froome is.
This latest news just confirms that we are at the Tribunal stage, but even this leaves several important questions unanswered:
1) did the Tribunal begin in the middle of February as originally reported (and neither confirmed nor denied by Froome), or only more recently? It makes a big difference in estimating when a decision will be announced.
2) Has there been a hearing yet? Probably not, but again, no clarity.
3) Was there an Acceptance of Consequences that Froome rejected? One assumes there must have been for the case to go to the Tribunal, and this latest story does say that LADS rejected Froome's explanation, but an Acceptance of Consequences letter proposes a specific ban, and we've heard nothing about this. If there was a ban, the length and timing of it would be a very strong clue to how the judge would probably eventually rule.
Parker said:Two points.
1. Pargraphs [sic]. Please present your decent [sic] in a better form. See above.
2. Unusually [sic] for cycling, this process seems to be fairly confidential. The reporting on the case has been full of speculation to fill copy. I'm not sure you can believe any of it.
1. I was just giving you some advice. You are one of the few posters worth reading on this forum. But clumping it altogether in one paragraph, something will inevitably be lostMerckx index said:Parker said:Two points.
1. Pargraphs [sic]. Please present your decent [sic] in a better form. See above.
Several years ago, you criticized me for lengthy posts. Now I try to condense them, and you're griping about that? You not like, you no read.
2. Unusually [sic] for cycling, this process seems to be fairly confidential. The reporting on the case has been full of speculation to fill copy. I'm not sure you can believe any of it.
Yes, there has been a lot of speculation. But at least when Lappartient reports on what has happened, he should have credibility. He should know what he's talking about.
Thanks for explaining! (Also @Merckx Index)CTQ said:the case is now at the stage 4.
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/
4- The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is an independent tribunal established by the UCI in January 2015, to adjudicate the international cases in a professional and consistent way (under the previous rules, cases were delegated to the relevant National Federation for disciplinary action). The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal will decide whether the rider committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and what the applicable sanction shall be. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal’s decisions can be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) not only by the rider and the UCI, but also by the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organisation as well as by WADA.
FtfyRollthedice said:Baldinger said:And now the tweet has been deleted.
Really? It's pretty bad then. Maybe Morgan called him up, Michelle is ruining his case with these stupid tweets.
Of course he isn't going to, it's in his advantage to delay this until after TDFbigcog said:So we are waiting on whether Froome accepts the "Acceptance of Consequences" ? If he hasn't got a good case/argument and doesn't sound like he has, it would be better if he took whatever ban they suggest, for him and the giro and tdf.
Merckx index said:As CTQ says, there is a very clear path laid out in the rules: Positive test - LADS - Acceptance of Consequences - appoint judge - Tribunal - hearing - decision. What is remarkable is that till now no public story, not even the interview with Lappartient, has pointed this out, then told us unambiguously exactly where in the process Froome is. This latest news just confirms that we are at the Tribunal stage, but even this leaves several important questions unanswered: 1) did the Tribunal begin in the middle of February as originally reported (and neither confirmed nor denied by Froome), or only more recently? It makes a big difference in estimating when a decision will be announced. 2) Has there been a hearing yet? Probably not, but again, no clarity. 3) Was there an Acceptance of Consequences that Froome rejected? One assumes there must have been for the case to go to the Tribunal, and this latest story does say that LADS rejected Froome's explanation, but an Acceptance of Consequences letter proposes a specific ban, and we've heard nothing about this. If there was a ban, the length and timing of it would be a very strong clue to how the judge would probably eventually rule.
From CN:
"I have no evidence that he is deliberately delaying things. He is trying to defend a number of arguments, it's his right," the UCI president David Lappartient said in the Le Monde report. "I do not see what he would gain from waiting, because if it is to race and be sanctioned after, for what reason?"
Even for Lappartient, this is a new low. The case might drag on to the Tour, and yet there is no evidence Froome is trying to delay? He's trying to defend a number of arguments (which in effect means he has none)? Has nothing to gain from delay, as if he wouldn't have everything to gain if any ban was proactive?