Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1165 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
70kmph said:
Haas has interviewed Froome before during the anti doping investigation called Circ

He also gave Ricco 12 years for 'failing to demonstrate a lack of impartiality'
What you've written makes absolutely no sense. And what the CAS decision actually said was that Ricco had failed to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the part of CONI when they banned him (ie Ricco had tried to argue CONI was biased against him, and failed to make that case at his CAS hearings).
 
fmk_RoI said:
70kmph said:
Haas has interviewed Froome before during the anti doping investigation called Circ

He also gave Ricco 12 years for 'failing to demonstrate a lack of impartiality'
What you've written makes absolutely no sense. And what the CAS decision actually said was that Ricco had failed to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the part of CONI when they banned him (ie Ricco had tried to argue CONI was biased against him, and failed to make that case at his CAS hearings).

Ricco response was "Ma drogatevi un po' che vi fa bene", or "go and take drugs, it'll do you good".
 
70kmph said:
fmk_RoI said:
70kmph said:
Haas has interviewed Froome before during the anti doping investigation called Circ

He also gave Ricco 12 years for 'failing to demonstrate a lack of impartiality'
What you've written makes absolutely no sense. And what the CAS decision actually said was that Ricco had failed to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the part of CONI when they banned him (ie Ricco had tried to argue CONI was biased against him, and failed to make that case at his CAS hearings).

Ricco response was "Ma drogatevi un po' che vi fa bene", or "go and take drugs, it'll do you good".
Well some have followed his advice, that is clear.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france

Questions - how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride? And to what extent do CAS rulings set binding precedents which future CAS panels must follow?
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france

Questions - how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride? And to what extent do CAS rulings set binding precedents which future CAS panels must follow?
There's nothing in that article to support that that is ASOs position or intention. In fact the denied other such reports just last week.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Of course he will not accept. That would imply admitting doping and his legacy is at stake.

This is all about perception and narrative. He will play dumb and wish to escape on a technicality, or at most receive a ban for an "abnormality", which of course has nothing to do with him mainlining everything under the sun.

“Technicality” .... ahhh ... she’s the perfumed sl-t of adjudication, nao eh?
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

Exclusion from races
2.2.010 Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence
bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of
cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.
The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires
panel and the organiser.
In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the
organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling
Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road
commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.
The licence holder or the team must be heard.
If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the
president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from
the president of the commissaires panel.
Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes
obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS
E010717 ROAD RACES 11
Special provisions applicable to road events:
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a
team or one of its members
whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or
reputation of the organiser or of the event.
If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision
taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of
Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.
However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the
Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1
avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cédex 13).

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20170701-E_English.PDF
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france

Questions - how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride? And to what extent do CAS rulings set binding precedents which future CAS panels must follow?

There's nothing in that article to support that that is ASOs position or intention. In fact the denied other such reports just last week.

"ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has a level of discretion on whom it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider race with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over him."
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france

Questions - how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride? And to what extent do CAS rulings set binding precedents which future CAS panels must follow?

There's nothing in that article to support that that is ASOs position or intention. In fact the denied other such reports just last week.
"ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has a level of discretion on whom it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider race with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over him."
And there is nothing in the article to support that sentence. No quotes, no sources, not even other journalists reports.
 
Re: Re:

70kmph said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

Exclusion from races
2.2.010 Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence
bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of
cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.
The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires
panel and the organiser.
In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the
organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling
Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road
commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.
The licence holder or the team must be heard.
If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the
president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from
the president of the commissaires panel.
Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes
obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS
E010717 ROAD RACES 11
Special provisions applicable to road events:
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a
team or one of its members
whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or
reputation of the organiser or of the event.
If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision
taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of
Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.
However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the
Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1
avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cédex 13).

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20170701-E_English.PDF

What you hilite ... is crystal clear.

The debate is ... or the debate continues ... what is the “probability” of this clause being executed against this particular rider under his particular, current AAF circumstances?
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france

Questions - how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride? And to what extent do CAS rulings set binding precedents which future CAS panels must follow?

There's nothing in that article to support that that is ASOs position or intention. In fact the denied other such reports just last week.

"ASO, the French company that runs the Tour, has a level of discretion on whom it registers for its event and has no intention of letting a rider race with a potential anti-doping violation hanging over him."

Boonen was the last rider ASO tried to press rule 28.2 on. ASO lost at French CAS iirc.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france

Questions - how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride? And to what extent do CAS rulings set binding precedents which future CAS panels must follow?

There's nothing in that article to support that that is ASOs position or intention. In fact the denied other such reports just last week.
Nowhere does it say that "Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride".

Look, we've been through this.

There are dreamers want to believe that 2.2.010 not only gives ASO a right to play the disrepute card but that, once played, that's it.

There are other dreamers who half accept this is nonsense and so have created a fantasy world in which ASO will wait until the eleventh hour to ban Froome, at which time it will be too late for him to take action.

The reality is that athletes have rights and ASO can't wait until the morning the race starts to chuck Froome out (at that stage the decision is in the hand of the race jury, so probably it's Tom van Damme gets to make the decision), they will have to act at least three days before the race starts (when the rider lists are submitted) or - more likely - sooner than that (they've generally acted a fortnight out from the race).

Once they act - should they act - Sky/Froome only have to take the case to the Chambre Abritrale du Sport, the agreed dispute resolution body for this (not the CAS).

They can try a civil action, but that will just delay time before they can get the Chambre to judge the case.

Once the case reaches the Chambre, they don't even need Morgan: Michelle Froome could lead the case, reading out all the rights of an athlete set out on the Valverde case.

The issue of 'precedent' may well be irrelevant here, but previous cases like Valverde's clearly identify the rights of an athlete, such as the right to be heard.

(The decisions in the Astana and Boonen cases are not public as they were handled by the Chambre, which doesn't have to publish its decisions.)

ASO have as good as admitted they have no power, with Contador, when they declined to expel him from the race while his CAS appeal was dragging on.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Of course he will not accept. That would imply admitting doping and his legacy is at stake.

This is all about perception and narrative. He will play dumb and wish to escape on a technicality, or at most receive a ban for an "abnormality", which of course has nothing to do with him mainlining everything under the sun.

“Technicality” .... ahhh ... she’s the perfumed sl-t of adjudication, nao eh?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
Boonen was the last rider ASO tried to press rule 28.2 on. ASO lost at CAS iirc.
The rule is 2.2.010 and ASO did not lose at CAS.

ASO's own rule is 28.2 or 28.3 I can't remember. Boonen rode that Tour. French sport arbitration chamber overruled, and the next day Boonen was at Grand Depart in Monaco. That's how I remember it.

Edit. Article 28.2

‘ASO may exclude from the event any team or any of its members [who commit] any other act or deed with is liable to damage the image and/or the reputation of ASO and/or of the event.’
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
Boonen was the last rider ASO tried to press rule 28.2 on. ASO lost at CAS iirc.
The rule is 2.2.010 and ASO did not lose at CAS.

ASO's own rule is 28.2 or 28.3 I can't remember. Boonen rode that Tour. French sport arbitration chamber overruled, and the next day Boonen was at Grand Depart in Monaco. That's how I remember it.

Edit. Article 28.2

‘ASO may exclude from the event any team or any of its members [who commit] any other act or deed with is liable to damage the image and/or the reputation of ASO and/or of the event.’
What an odd memory you have. It's almost like you remembered by looking up the most recent TdF 'réglement booklet you could find. Funnily, in 2009, it was item number 29.1 in the booklet. It varies from year to year, as you must know. But always references the UCI rule: 2.2.010. Making 2.2.010 the more meaningful reference, while 29.1 or whatever it is in different years is meaningless unless you have a copy of the réglements.

Thank you for accepting your error WRT CAS's role and recognising it was the French sport arbitration chamber (which would abbreviate to SAC, I guess).
 
It's not a memory recollection competition lol!

My main point is the same regardless of exact wording at the time. ASO thought a rider racing would damage their image, but a Court for sport arbitration overruled them preventing the rider from starting and the rider raced the event.

Now we can argue does recreational Cocaine use bring less damage to an event compared to Salbutomol and potential loss of results, but regardless, a precedent was set with Boonen where ASO wanted to prevent the rider from stating using the same rule they will want to apply to Froome it seems. For Giro, he's already raced RCS events under that organiser, so not even worth attempting to block him, they've set their own precedent already by allowing him to ride their Tirreno event.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
a precedent was set with Boonen where ASO wanted to prevent the rider from stating using the same rule they will want to apply to Froome it seems.
If it is a 'precedent' (Christ but I *** hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term) it did not start with Boonen: ASO had already lost more or less the same case with Astana three years before.

As I've said, we've been through this. All of it. But maybe you don't remember it so well.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
70kmph said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Guardian saying that Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before TdF, that ASO will try to to block his participation, and that Froome will get Morgan to fight for his right to ride

Exclusion from races
2.2.010 Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence
bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of
cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.
The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires
panel and the organiser.
In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the
organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling
Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road
commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.
The licence holder or the team must be heard.
If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the
president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from
the president of the commissaires panel.
Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes
obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS
E010717 ROAD RACES 11
Special provisions applicable to road events:
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a
team or one of its members
whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or
reputation of the organiser or of the event.
If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision
taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of
Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.
However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the
Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1
avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cédex 13).

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20170701-E_English.PDF

What you hilite ... is crystal clear.

The debate is ... or the debate continues ... what is the “probability” of this clause being executed against this particular rider under his particular, current AAF circumstances?
What's to be gained by invoking 2.2.010?

1) ASO get to look tough
2) France gets to look tough (and if as was claimed to have happened in the Boonen case happens again and political pressure is exerted on ASO to play the disrepute card, what France has to gain needs to be considered)
3) But ASO also get to look powerless when the decision goes against them, as it inevitably would
4) Equally, France looks powerless when the decision goes against ASO, as it inevitably would
5) Froome gets to look stronger as a result of beating ASO - he is shown clearly and unambiguously to have a legal right to ride the Tour
6) The haters will be stirred up even more than they've ever been and the risk of physical violence against all the riders, not just Froome, will only increase, particularly on a drunk-tank like the Alpe

Three pros, three cons, so 50:50, but to my mind the cons far outweigh the pyrrhic pros and so the chances of ASO actually being crazy enough to play the disrepute card are very, very low.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
a precedent was set with Boonen where ASO wanted to prevent the rider from stating using the same rule they will want to apply to Froome it seems.
If it is a 'precedent' (Christ but I **** hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term) it did not start with Boonen: ASO had already lost more or less the same case with Astana three years before.

As I've said, we've been through this. All of it. But maybe you don't remember it so well.

Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.
You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
For someone who hates barrack room lawyers and the concept of legal precedent so much FMK is doing a great impression of the former while citing plenty of the latter :rolleyes:
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
For someone who hates barrack room lawyers and the concept of legal precedent so much FMK is doing a great impression of the former while citing plenty of the latter :rolleyes:

I'm citing case law WP. That's all.

For which I'm grateful. But you can't have it both ways ;)

You're convinced that ASO won't try to stop Froome starting the TdF. And that if they do try Morgan will knock ASO back with a legal challenge

I think you're probably right but I'm not quite so convinced. Legal systems have a funny way of bending with the wind when wider issues of public policy are at stake. And the French are very protective of the TdF

Thankfully this is a legal car crash playing out in real time (as with the Aussie ball tampering affair). Everyone's theories are proved or disproved soon enough