• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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 1166 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

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 :rolleyes:

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

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

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:
Arbitral awards are normally binding only in the cases and on the parties to which they are addressed. Unlike judicial decisions in common-law systems, arbitral awards therefore have no currency as stare decisis. At the most, they may sometimes constitute a lex specialis.

In practice, however, the awards and opinions of the CAS provide guidance in later cases, strongly influence later awards, and often function as precedent. Also, by reinforcing and helping elaborate established rules and principles of international sports law, the accretion of CAS awards and opinions is gradually forming a source of that body of law. This source has been called the lex sportiva.
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.
Wiggo's Package said:
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
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.

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.
 
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:

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.
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.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
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.

Yes, you assumed he wins which will not be the case.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Rollthedice said:
Baldinger said:
And now the tweet has been deleted.
Really? It's pretty bad then. Maybe Morgan called him up, poor Froomey is ruining his case with these stupid tweets.
The style reads like one of Michelle's disinhibited Twitter rants, and it backfired, because now the tweet is quoted in dozens of real-news articles, in many languages. Too late.

Perhaps Froome will now be officially labeled the "first post-truth cyclist". That is a subject for future debate - who crossed the line first, and when?
The method of dopers such as Armstrong was to stubbornly repeat the same lies, and to rationalize after the fact.
"No such thing as cheating, when everyone is doing it anyway", or "I'm sorry that you don't believe in miracles" are conceptually not quite the same as "No such thing as truth."

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:

fmk_RoI said:
Rollthedice said:
Can he ride while the appeal is judged by CAS?
Remember Contador? Yes, he can ride.

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:

AussieGoddess said:
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.
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:
While the Grand Tour organisers have maintained the right to exclude teams over ethical violations, the Contador case does not fall into this category since he has cooperated with the anti-doping proceedings.
Froome, of course, is evidently not playing by the rules, right?
AussieGoddess said:
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.
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.
However, both athletes and governing bodies need to be aware that in order to establish a breach of these common provisions, the governing body must establish that public opinion of the sport has been diminished as a result of the conduct in question, and not as a result of some peripheral sideshow (i.e. speculative media articles) which may have since overtaken the conduct in question. Anything less may not suffice and a tribunal may not be prepared to make a finding that the athlete is the cause of bringing themselves or the game into disrepute.
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
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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 :rolleyes:

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

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

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:
Arbitral awards are normally binding only in the cases and on the parties to which they are addressed. Unlike judicial decisions in common-law systems, arbitral awards therefore have no currency as stare decisis. At the most, they may sometimes constitute a lex specialis.

In practice, however, the awards and opinions of the CAS provide guidance in later cases, strongly influence later awards, and often function as precedent. Also, by reinforcing and helping elaborate established rules and principles of international sports law, the accretion of CAS awards and opinions is gradually forming a source of that body of law. This source has been called the lex sportiva.
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.
Wiggo's Package said:
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
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.

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:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
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 :rolleyes:

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

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

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:
Arbitral awards are normally binding only in the cases and on the parties to which they are addressed. Unlike judicial decisions in common-law systems, arbitral awards therefore have no currency as stare decisis. At the most, they may sometimes constitute a lex specialis.

In practice, however, the awards and opinions of the CAS provide guidance in later cases, strongly influence later awards, and often function as precedent. Also, by reinforcing and helping elaborate established rules and principles of international sports law, the accretion of CAS awards and opinions is gradually forming a source of that body of law. This source has been called the lex sportiva.
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.
Wiggo's Package said:
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
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.

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?
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.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
AussieGoddess said:
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.
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:
While the Grand Tour organisers have maintained the right to exclude teams over ethical violations, the Contador case does not fall into this category since he has cooperated with the anti-doping proceedings.
Froome, of course, is evidently not playing by the rules, right?
AussieGoddess said:
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.
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.
However, both athletes and governing bodies need to be aware that in order to establish a breach of these common provisions, the governing body must establish that public opinion of the sport has been diminished as a result of the conduct in question, and not as a result of some peripheral sideshow (i.e. speculative media articles) which may have since overtaken the conduct in question. Anything less may not suffice and a tribunal may not be prepared to make a finding that the athlete is the cause of bringing themselves or the game into disrepute.
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...
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.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.

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
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
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.
:lol: :lol: Sorry but that is so fuc*ing funny coming from YOU :lol: :lol:
 
Re:

Rollthedice 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.
seemingly there are no people who may be unhappy with such an outcome. ;) 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? ;)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Please indulge me and explain why it's so important to the Froome case

Which part of my explanation did you not understand?

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