The case is with the tribunal, surely three months should be enough to hand the suspension. Can he ride while the appeal is judged by CAS?
-
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!
Re: Re:
Let's start with something basic: I have only ever referred to case law when discussing the disrepute clause but a few weeks back one poster here got the hump and harrumphed that there is no such thing as precedent at CAS. Because I am fully aware of how often people get it arse over tit, I had no interest in debating the matter and getting into the finer points of yes but no on it. But, as we're now playing that game, here is CAS's position on precedent:
The Astana and Boonen decisions are important for showing that you can't just scream disrepute, which is what several posters early on in this debate believed was all that was required. Both cases are important in confirming there is an agreed appeals procedure, which for the Tour is the Chambre, not CAS. The Boonen case is particularly important in showing that the civil courts will tend to stay out of this area of law, so the threat of a civil action is nonsense. The Boonen case is also important in showing that that team can make the appeal and we don't have to waste time debating whether - as one eminent legal expert recently suggested - Froome has a contractual relationship with ASO. There could be more in both cases but since the Chambre does not publish its decisions, we don't know for sure exactly how the decisions were made.
We do know how the Valverde decision was made, and though it involved the UCI and CAS, it is still relevant here for the rights of an athlete it identified and upheld. And those rights are very important in the Froome case, should ASO feel like bending to political pressure or going for the cheap PR win and trying to ban Froome.
That said, I do believe that if the case were to go ahead it would be an easy win for Froome. Read the Valverde decision.
WP - many people, IMHO, have not got a clue what they mean when they use the word precedent. Which means that those who may use it correctly are still being misunderstood by those who do not understand it. And the fact is, there's good reason for confusion.Wiggo's Package said: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
I'm citing case law WP. That's all.
For which I'm grateful. But you can't have it both ways
Let's start with something basic: I have only ever referred to case law when discussing the disrepute clause but a few weeks back one poster here got the hump and harrumphed that there is no such thing as precedent at CAS. Because I am fully aware of how often people get it arse over tit, I had no interest in debating the matter and getting into the finer points of yes but no on it. But, as we're now playing that game, here is CAS's position on precedent:
So, as far as CAS is concerned, I think it would be helpful if we left words like precedent in the barracks and were clear about what we want to know and what we are actually saying. That way we won't have to keep going back to first principles and boring everyone to tears explaining that while precedent doesn't work at CAS actually it does.
The Astana and Boonen decisions are important for showing that you can't just scream disrepute, which is what several posters early on in this debate believed was all that was required. Both cases are important in confirming there is an agreed appeals procedure, which for the Tour is the Chambre, not CAS. The Boonen case is particularly important in showing that the civil courts will tend to stay out of this area of law, so the threat of a civil action is nonsense. The Boonen case is also important in showing that that team can make the appeal and we don't have to waste time debating whether - as one eminent legal expert recently suggested - Froome has a contractual relationship with ASO. There could be more in both cases but since the Chambre does not publish its decisions, we don't know for sure exactly how the decisions were made.
We do know how the Valverde decision was made, and though it involved the UCI and CAS, it is still relevant here for the rights of an athlete it identified and upheld. And those rights are very important in the Froome case, should ASO feel like bending to political pressure or going for the cheap PR win and trying to ban Froome.
I'm not convinced ASO won't be dumb enough to play the disprepute card. They played it in the Boonen case, and that was after the Valverde decision. But in the Boonen case it's claimed ASO were subjected to political pressure. Rationally - and I believe ASO do act rationally - there is next to nothing to be gained by screaming disrepute (there is something to be gained by getting people to talk up the possibility of it happening) but once politicians get involved rationality goes out the window.Wiggo's Package said:
That said, I do believe that if the case were to go ahead it would be an easy win for Froome. Read the Valverde decision.
Re: Re:
The decision or the reasoned decision? The former of course, the latter eventually.Rollthedice said:
So, a possible scenario would be he gets suspended by the tribunal for 12 months starting from when the decision is taken, say end of June. He looses the Vuelta but keeps the Giro that he just won. Everybody finds out and give him hell. He appeals at CAS and starts TdF. He wins TdF and in September CAS rules that the suspension was right. They strip him of Le Tour. Everybody is going crazy.
Re:
Sorry, there is confusion here: 1) if he wins and the UCI/WADA appeal, he rides (as Contador did); 2) if he loses and appeals, of course he can't ride (as all other athletes in similar cases couldn't). The latter I thought was clearly understood. Apparently I assumed too much.Rollthedice said:
Re: Re:
Michelle & Dawg posting and then deleting a kind of Troompe tweet is the first tangible sign that he's beginning to crack under pressure. He is not the convincing type of liar like LA, he looks more like a child caught with the hand in the cookie jar. I am beginning to think that they know there's no way out of this, Michelle's advice is cash in as long as it's possible.
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Michelle & Dawg posting and then deleting a kind of Troompe tweet is the first tangible sign that he's beginning to crack under pressure. He is not the convincing type of liar like LA, he looks more like a child caught with the hand in the cookie jar. I am beginning to think that they know there's no way out of this, Michelle's advice is cash in as long as it's possible.
Re: Re:
I dont understand how on earth the Contador case is relevant here.
Contador was cleared by the Anti Doping Tribunal who heard his case - so he was free to ride. He had been cleared so its pretty hard to say that him riding would cause damage to the reputation of the race. The UCI appealed to CAS, but the outcome of the tribunal applies until the CAS case is heard.
In the case of Froome - if the anti doping case has not been heard yet - there is a strong case for saying that him riding would cause reputational damage.
fmk_RoI said:
I dont understand how on earth the Contador case is relevant here.
Contador was cleared by the Anti Doping Tribunal who heard his case - so he was free to ride. He had been cleared so its pretty hard to say that him riding would cause damage to the reputation of the race. The UCI appealed to CAS, but the outcome of the tribunal applies until the CAS case is heard.
In the case of Froome - if the anti doping case has not been heard yet - there is a strong case for saying that him riding would cause reputational damage.
Re: Re:
Edit: I see Aussie Goddess ( not seen on here in a long time ) posted the same argument just above, but much better
Only if he is free to ride as per the tribunal's decision as was the case for Contador.fmk_RoI said:
Edit: I see Aussie Goddess ( not seen on here in a long time
) posted the same argument just above, but much better
Re: Re:
Of course, even if you could prove that Froome was causing disrepute, you'd still be barely at the starting line and facing the hurdles made clear in the Valverde case. How you get over them without breaking a leg and having to be put down is quite the challenge...
Well of course, clearly, absolutely, riding the Tour, possibly winning it and facing the prospect of having the win stripped and reallocated, there's no way anyone - anyone! - could claim that would cause damage to the reputation of the race. No way at all. And, of course, as Prudy and co noted in 2011, Bert was playing by the rules:AussieGoddess said:
Froome, of course, is evidently not playing by the rules, right?
I will keep saying this until it gets through to people: simply screaming 'Disrepute!' is not enough. You have to prove the case. And here what British Cycling's Julie Harrington said on the matter is vitally important: the leaking of news of Froome's case is what is damaging cycling, not Froome's AAF. She could actually be right. Proving disrepute, you have to be able to separate the man and his crime from the media storm that blows up around both.AussieGoddess said:
Obviously, if you are in the haters camp, you are clear that it is Froome and not the media doing the damage, and obviously if you believe it is the media not Froome doing the damage you're a fanboi. Which do you think the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport is? They didn't think a coked-out hardman like Tom Boonen was causing disrepute. They didn't think a whole team of dopers like Astana was causing disrepute. Maybe the Chambre really is packed with fanbois and we're ***. Only possible explanation, right?
Of course, even if you could prove that Froome was causing disrepute, you'd still be barely at the starting line and facing the hurdles made clear in the Valverde case. How you get over them without breaking a leg and having to be put down is quite the challenge...
Assume that Froome has been taking high doses of oral
A) He has stopped using now and will see a drop in his performance
B) He continues the chronic abuse and will be going just as fast, risking a 2nd infraction
C) He never was performance enhancing, it was only therapeutic but he must take even less than his normal dosage and suffer asthma attacks and drop performance
Its a dilemma
A) He has stopped using now and will see a drop in his performance
B) He continues the chronic abuse and will be going just as fast, risking a 2nd infraction
C) He never was performance enhancing, it was only therapeutic but he must take even less than his normal dosage and suffer asthma attacks and drop performance
Its a dilemma
Froome will continue his doping program and hope not to do the same mistake, like take 2 pills the same day!
Re: Re:
Thanks. So CAS precedents are not binding. But they can strongly influence future rulings. Understood
However, it's worth noting that common law precedents are only binding where the facts of two cases are the same (which rarely happens because real life is messy), and the same must presumably be true for past CAS rulings to strongly influence the Froome case
So, while you keep citing the Boonen case as a strong influencer for the Froome case, the facts of those two cases are really very different. Boonen failed a dope test but the drug was recreational (cocaine) not performance enhancing. Whereas Froome is part way through the AAF process in respect of a drug (salbutamol) which is permitted in small medicinal doses but is banned in the higher performance enhancing doses found in Froome's system
So to move away from the precedent thing, which I'm inclined to agree may not be especially helpful here, are you able to confirm which legal principles under-pinned the previous CAS rulings that riders cannot be prevented from riding by organisers?
For example, have restraint of trade arguments been wheeled out by the riders' lawyers?
fmk_RoI said:WP - many people, IMHO, have not got a clue what they mean when they use the word precedent. Which means that those who may use it correctly are still being misunderstood by those who do not understand it. And the fact is, there's good reason for confusion.Wiggo's Package said: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
I'm citing case law WP. That's all.
For which I'm grateful. But you can't have it both ways
Let's start with something basic: I have only ever referred to case law when discussing the disrepute clause but a few weeks back one poster here got the hump and harrumphed that there is no such thing as precedent at CAS. Because I am fully aware of how often people get it **** over tit, I had no interest in debating the matter and getting into the finer points of yes but no on it. But, as we're now playing that game, here is CAS's position on precedent:So, as far as CAS is concerned, I think it would be helpful if we left words like precedent in the barracks and were clear about what we want to know and what we are actually saying. That way we won't have to keep going back to first principles and boring everyone to tears explaining that while precedent doesn't work at CAS actually it does.
The Astana and Boonen decisions are important for showing that you can't just scream disrepute, which is what several posters early on in this debate believed was all that was required. Both cases are important in confirming there is an agreed appeals procedure, which for the Tour is the Chambre, not CAS. The Boonen case is particularly important in showing that the civil courts will tend to stay out of this area of law, so the threat of a civil action is nonsense. The Boonen case is also important in showing that that team can make the appeal and we don't have to waste time debating whether - as one eminent legal expert recently suggested - Froome has a contractual relationship with ASO. There could be more in both cases but since the Chambre does not publish its decisions, we don't know for sure exactly how the decisions were made.
We do know how the Valverde decision was made, and though it involved the UCI and CAS, it is still relevant here for the rights of an athlete it identified and upheld. And those rights are very important in the Froome case, should ASO feel like bending to political pressure or going for the cheap PR win and trying to ban Froome.I'm not convinced ASO won't be dumb enough to play the disprepute card. They played it in the Boonen case, and that was after the Valverde decision. But in the Boonen case it's claimed ASO were subjected to political pressure. Rationally - and I believe ASO do act rationally - there is next to nothing to be gained by screaming disrepute (there is something to be gained by getting people to talk up the possibility of it happening) but once politicians get involved rationality goes out the window.Wiggo's Package said:
That said, I do believe that if the case were to go ahead it would be an easy win for Froome. Read the Valverde decision.
Thanks. So CAS precedents are not binding. But they can strongly influence future rulings. Understood
However, it's worth noting that common law precedents are only binding where the facts of two cases are the same (which rarely happens because real life is messy), and the same must presumably be true for past CAS rulings to strongly influence the Froome case
So, while you keep citing the Boonen case as a strong influencer for the Froome case, the facts of those two cases are really very different. Boonen failed a dope test but the drug was recreational (cocaine) not performance enhancing. Whereas Froome is part way through the AAF process in respect of a drug (salbutamol) which is permitted in small medicinal doses but is banned in the higher performance enhancing doses found in Froome's system
So to move away from the precedent thing, which I'm inclined to agree may not be especially helpful here, are you able to confirm which legal principles under-pinned the previous CAS rulings that riders cannot be prevented from riding by organisers?
For example, have restraint of trade arguments been wheeled out by the riders' lawyers?
Re: Re:
I've explained why the Boonen case matters. And how little we actually know about its decision. And that having the Valverde case's reasoned decision, that is more important. Read the decision.Wiggo's Package said:fmk_RoI said:WP - many people, IMHO, have not got a clue what they mean when they use the word precedent. Which means that those who may use it correctly are still being misunderstood by those who do not understand it. And the fact is, there's good reason for confusion.Wiggo's Package said: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
I'm citing case law WP. That's all.
For which I'm grateful. But you can't have it both ways
Let's start with something basic: I have only ever referred to case law when discussing the disrepute clause but a few weeks back one poster here got the hump and harrumphed that there is no such thing as precedent at CAS. Because I am fully aware of how often people get it **** over tit, I had no interest in debating the matter and getting into the finer points of yes but no on it. But, as we're now playing that game, here is CAS's position on precedent:So, as far as CAS is concerned, I think it would be helpful if we left words like precedent in the barracks and were clear about what we want to know and what we are actually saying. That way we won't have to keep going back to first principles and boring everyone to tears explaining that while precedent doesn't work at CAS actually it does.
The Astana and Boonen decisions are important for showing that you can't just scream disrepute, which is what several posters early on in this debate believed was all that was required. Both cases are important in confirming there is an agreed appeals procedure, which for the Tour is the Chambre, not CAS. The Boonen case is particularly important in showing that the civil courts will tend to stay out of this area of law, so the threat of a civil action is nonsense. The Boonen case is also important in showing that that team can make the appeal and we don't have to waste time debating whether - as one eminent legal expert recently suggested - Froome has a contractual relationship with ASO. There could be more in both cases but since the Chambre does not publish its decisions, we don't know for sure exactly how the decisions were made.
We do know how the Valverde decision was made, and though it involved the UCI and CAS, it is still relevant here for the rights of an athlete it identified and upheld. And those rights are very important in the Froome case, should ASO feel like bending to political pressure or going for the cheap PR win and trying to ban Froome.I'm not convinced ASO won't be dumb enough to play the disprepute card. They played it in the Boonen case, and that was after the Valverde decision. But in the Boonen case it's claimed ASO were subjected to political pressure. Rationally - and I believe ASO do act rationally - there is next to nothing to be gained by screaming disrepute (there is something to be gained by getting people to talk up the possibility of it happening) but once politicians get involved rationality goes out the window.Wiggo's Package said:
That said, I do believe that if the case were to go ahead it would be an easy win for Froome. Read the Valverde decision.
Thanks. So CAS precedents are not binding. But they can strongly influence future rulings. Understood
However, it's worth noting that common law precedents are only binding where the facts of two cases are the same (which rarely happens because real life is messy), and the same must presumably be true for past CAS rulings to strongly influence the Froome case
So, while you keep citing the Boonen case as a strong influencer for the Froome case, the facts of those two cases are really very different. Boonen failed a dope test but the drug was recreational (cocaine) not performance enhancing. Whereas Froome is part way through the AAF process in respect of a drug (salbutamol) which is permitted in small medicinal doses but is banned in the higher performance enhancing doses found in Froome's system
So to move away from the precedent thing, which I'm inclined to agree may not be especially helpful here, are you able to confirm which legal principles under-pinned the previous CAS rulings that riders cannot be prevented from riding by organisers?
For example, have restraint of trade arguments been wheeled out by the riders' lawyers?
Re: Re:
Wow, chill. I believe Aussie Goddess is a lawyer, so I suppose she has some idea of what she's talking about. Either way, no need for so much emotion.fmk_RoI said:
Re: Re:
So we don't know why the Boonen decision was made. Please indulge me and explain why it's so important to the Froome case
And is this the link for the Valverde case? If so, which are the relevant sections (I've reviewed it and nothings jumps out)? If not, please provide a link and flag up which sections are relevant to the Froome case
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/cas_2009_a_1879_valverde_v_coni_en_0.pdf
fmk_RoI said:
So we don't know why the Boonen decision was made. Please indulge me and explain why it's so important to the Froome case
And is this the link for the Valverde case? If so, which are the relevant sections (I've reviewed it and nothings jumps out)? If not, please provide a link and flag up which sections are relevant to the Froome case
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/cas_2009_a_1879_valverde_v_coni_en_0.pdf
Re: Re:
:lol: :lol: Sorry but that is so fuc*ing funny coming from YOU :lol: :lol:LaFlorecita said:
Judge Ulrich will hand Froome a 24 month suspension on the eve of Le Tour so he can go home and enjoy becoming father for the second time. Thomas will be happy, Prudhomme will be happy and God knows how many cycling fans.
rick james
BANNED
Re:
granted, the situation of froome beating nibali and others in grand tours over the last 5 or so years demands huge emotional revenge, so a suspension would be great. oneday anti-doping poulpe will reach other big riders and other fans will be happy about them getting banned, but it will be okish as people champions can do whatever they want, don't they?
seemingly there are no people who may be unhappy with such an outcome.Rollthedice said:
granted, the situation of froome beating nibali and others in grand tours over the last 5 or so years demands huge emotional revenge, so a suspension would be great. oneday anti-doping poulpe will reach other big riders and other fans will be happy about them getting banned, but it will be okish as people champions can do whatever they want, don't they? Re: Re:
Like I said, please indulge me. Explain with links/evidence how you're able to infer so much from the Boonen ruling if it that ruling is not in the public domain. Just imagine you're really clever and I'm really dumb. Shouldn't be hard from the tone of your posts so far
As for the Valverde judgement, you didn't even answer my question about that. Do I need to repeat it? It's great that you're confident enough to be so arrogant and supercilious. Gotta back it up though, dude. Seems like the more I press you the more you slide away
fmk_RoI said:
Like I said, please indulge me. Explain with links/evidence how you're able to infer so much from the Boonen ruling if it that ruling is not in the public domain. Just imagine you're really clever and I'm really dumb. Shouldn't be hard from the tone of your posts so far
As for the Valverde judgement, you didn't even answer my question about that. Do I need to repeat it? It's great that you're confident enough to be so arrogant and supercilious. Gotta back it up though, dude. Seems like the more I press you the more you slide away
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 24K
-
Tour Down Under 2025 - Men's (Jan. 21-26)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 322
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram