Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1169 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
This is what I think is important in the Valverde judgement, the way the panel fell back on basic, universal rights and held that they were more important than the the need to be seen to be doing something in the fight against doping.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute.
By much the same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute.

But in any case, Harrington is apparently missing the fact that Froome could be sanctioned during the Giro, or after it in a way that his results are reversed. That has nothing to do with the media. On the contrary, the media are the only force that prevented this possibility from occurring without any advance warning.

But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
But organizers have rights, too. Like being able to offer someone money for entering a race knowing that if the rider might not be able to hold up his end of the bargain, he will notify them. I would have thought that was pretty basic.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
By much the same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute.
I'm confused: are we allowed to compare Froome and Bert again now? Won't there be letters of complaint?

Yes, by that same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute, and so - armed with their copy of the Valverde judgement - ASO didn't even try to block Bert. But Bert also had other points on his side too, such as the right to be heard. I doubt if one single issue stayed ASO's hand, there's a wealth of them should have caused them to do nothing.
Merckx index said:
But in any case, Harrington is apparently missing the fact that Froome could be sanctioned during the Giro, or after it in a way that his results are reversed. That has nothing to do with the media. On the contrary, the media are the only force that prevented this possibility from occurring without any advance warning.
I think if you read the Valverde judgement - I know it's in foreign, but make the effort or get someone to do it for you - you will find that this issue is covered there. So you're right, it's got *** all to do with the media, I don't understand why you're trying to suggest it does.

Merckx index said:
But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
But organizers have rights, too. Like being able to offer someone money for entering a race knowing that if the rider might not be able to hold up his end of the bargain, he will notify them. I would have thought that was pretty basic.
Everybody's rights get weighed. In the Valverde case the balance favoured the rider, the organisers having plenty of other rights that would save them in the eventuality that, say, Valverde had actually won the rainbow jumper.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute.
By much the same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute.

But in any case, Harrington is apparently missing the fact that Froome could be sanctioned during the Giro, or after it in a way that his results are reversed. That has nothing to do with the media. On the contrary, the media are the only force that prevented this possibility from occurring without any advance warning.

But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
But organizers have rights, too. Like being able to offer someone money for entering a race knowing that if the rider might not be able to hold up his end of the bargain, he will notify them. I would have thought that was pretty basic.
The overlap of contract (Giro-Froome), UCI's provision for Froome to ride and Froome's right to privacy on his AAF ... needs some teasing out.

True, Vegni has no idea if Froome will be, ultimately, sanctioned. What to do? (Wonder what the contract looks like?)

Vegni also has no idea if Dumoulin will test + for EPO after he wins the Giro. What to do?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute.
By much the same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute.

But in any case, Harrington is apparently missing the fact that Froome could be sanctioned during the Giro, or after it in a way that his results are reversed. That has nothing to do with the media. On the contrary, the media are the only force that prevented this possibility from occurring without any advance warning.

But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
But organizers have rights, too. Like being able to offer someone money for entering a race knowing that if the rider might not be able to hold up his end of the bargain, he will notify them. I would have thought that was pretty basic.
Yes, you could be right. And this would cause "disrepute" to the Giro? OK ... what does that disrepute look like? What is the pith and substance of such disrepute? Would it do damage that is measurable? Would the brand be ruined? Would future Giros be boycotted by riders and fans? If yes, to only a few of these ... maybe Vegni has a case. But, he doesn't seem to be peddling it, yet. Will ASO build a similar case? Or is it all just a bit of conjuring, posturing. If they've got none of these ... they've just got this romantic anti-ideal, do they not?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Alpe73 said:
But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
This is what I think is important in the Valverde judgement, the way the panel fell back on basic, universal rights and held that they were more important than the the need to be seen to be doing something in the fight against doping.
Yes ... the question (of the danger) of 'justice' following into disrepute is not an uncommon consideration in constituional law. It's gonna trump the danger of a bike race falling into disrepute, most days, I reckon.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute.
By much the same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute.

But in any case, Harrington is apparently missing the fact that Froome could be sanctioned during the Giro, or after it in a way that his results are reversed. That has nothing to do with the media. On the contrary, the media are the only force that prevented this possibility from occurring without any advance warning.

But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
But organizers have rights, too. Like being able to offer someone money for entering a race knowing that if the rider might not be able to hold up his end of the bargain, he will notify them. I would have thought that was pretty basic.
Yes, you could be right. And this would cause "disrepute" to the Giro? OK ... what does that disrepute look like? What is the pith and substance of such disrepute? Would it do damage that is measurable? Would the brand be ruined? Would future Giros be boycotted by riders and fans? If yes, to only a few of these ... maybe Vegni has a case. But, he doesn't seem to be peddling it, yet. Will ASO build a similar case? Or is it all just a bit of conjuring, posturing. If they've got none of these ... they've just got this romantic anti-ideal, do they not?
The problem sport justice has with the claim that stripping a rider of victory and reallocating the win causes disrepute is that such an action is laid down in the rules. In the Valverde case, for instance, they weighed the possibility of Valverde winning the Worlds but then decided that, well, the UCI had the ability to strip him of victory should that happen and should it transpire that he was involved in Puerto. The possible disrepute was undone by the sanction available to the organisers, a sanction some here seem to think itself causes disrepute.

If you argue that stripping the rider of victory causes disrepute, then are you granting the race organiser the right to refuse to strip the rider of victory in order to protect the reputation or serenity or whatever of their event?

Or let's take this back to the argument made several months ago now: if we're saying that someone potentially being stripped of victory can cause disrepute, where do we draw the line? If Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibility they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone dopes. So that embodiment of purity has to be pre-emptively banned and we get a wonderfully Orwellian scenario: to save the race from the potential of disrepute, you have to cause actual disrepute. Cause I think we'd all agree, there'd be quite the media storm if you banned Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is.
 
My understanding is Vegni is worried that Froome will be stripped of his results if found guilty by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal, though it appears possible that in this case any guilty finding will be from that date, rather than backdating - The only backdating would be Froome loses his results from the Vuelta.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
The problem sport justice has with the claim that stripping a rider of victory and reallocating the win causes disrepute is that such an action is laid down in the rules. In the Valverde case, for instance, they weighed the possibility of Valverde winning the Worlds but then decided that, well, the UCI had the ability to strip him of victory should that happen and should it transpire that he was involved in Puerto. The possible disrepute was undone by the sanction available to the organisers, a sanction some here seem to think itself causes disrepute.
So will Froome refund Vegni if he gets sanctioned during or after the Giro?

Just because one has redress if something comes to pass doesn’t mean that one encourages that thing to pass. We could turn this logic around on Froome himself. Many people, of course, have accused Froome of doping, of intentionally taking performance enhancing substances. Suppose he’s exonerated, and wishes to claim damages against someone he feels wrongfully smeared him. Maybe he wins that case. By the logic you’ve just suggested, everything is back to normal, no harm done. But of course many people who have actually been falsely accused of something will tell you that no settlement of any kind ever completely restores their reputation. In fact, there are some pretty well-known legal cases in the U.S. where someone was falsely accused of some serious crime, and despite being completely cleared, has faced serious consequences indefinitely.

Now maybe it’s different with some bike race. After all, allowing someone to ride who is later ruled to be a cheat is not quite the same as being accused of rape or murder. But if it is different, it’s not because the rider can later be stripped, if necessary. That by itself is no guarantee that no harm has been done.

If you argue that stripping the rider of victory causes disrepute, then are you granting the race organiser the right to refuse to strip the rider of victory in order to protect the reputation or serenity or whatever of their event?
Come on, you’re more logical than that. It isn’t the stripping that causes disrepute, it’s the fact that someone was racing who everyone knew might subsequently be stripped. Even if the race organizers declined to strip the rider, they would still be in disrepute (to the extent that stripping would cause that).

If an election commission allowed someone to run for office who had been charged with murder, and following the election he was convicted of the crime, the commission would not be in disrepute because of the conviction, but because they allowed someone to run they knew might be convicted. Yes, the conviction prevents a murderer from holding office, but the commission shouldn't have had to depend on this.

Or let's take this back to the argument made several months ago now: if we're saying that someone potentially being stripped of victory can cause disrepute, where do we draw the line? If Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibility they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone dopes. So that embodiment of purity has to be pre-emptively banned and we get a wonderfully Orwellian scenario: to save the race from the potential of disrepute, you have to cause actual disrepute. Cause I think we'd all agree, there'd be quite the media storm if you banned Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is.
Beyond what I've just said about the flawed logic here, this hypothetical scenario also violates the 99% scenario I mentioned above. If the probability of an AAF (let alone no AAF) turning into a ADRV is < 1%, then you respect the rider's right to ride.

Just to be clear, I'm not pushing the idea of Froome's being not allowed to race, nor do I think he will be prevented from doing so. But this is the guy who said he acts in a way that is above and beyond just following the rules.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute.
By much the same logic, Contador’s entry into the TDF was not causing disrepute; it was the appeal of the decision by WADA/UCI that caused the disrepute.

But in any case, Harrington is apparently missing the fact that Froome could be sanctioned during the Giro, or after it in a way that his results are reversed. That has nothing to do with the media. On the contrary, the media are the only force that prevented this possibility from occurring without any advance warning.

But riders are workers. They do have certain rights, as well ... and would be wise to protect them, vigorously.
But organizers have rights, too. Like being able to offer someone money for entering a race knowing that if the rider might not be able to hold up his end of the bargain, he will notify them. I would have thought that was pretty basic.
In an organizer is refusing a rider, he could still ride an other race, his rights are still protected. As pro, that is responsability to stay attractive like any workers.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
The problem sport justice has with the claim that stripping a rider of victory and reallocating the win causes disrepute is that such an action is laid down in the rules. In the Valverde case, for instance, they weighed the possibility of Valverde winning the Worlds but then decided that, well, the UCI had the ability to strip him of victory should that happen and should it transpire that he was involved in Puerto. The possible disrepute was undone by the sanction available to the organisers, a sanction some here seem to think itself causes disrepute.
So will Froome refund Vegni if he gets sanctioned during or after the Giro?

Just because one has redress if something comes to pass doesn’t mean that one encourages that thing to pass. We could turn this logic around on Froome himself. Many people, of course, have accused Froome of doping, of intentionally taking performance enhancing substances. Suppose he’s exonerated, and wishes to claim damages against someone he feels wrongfully smeared him. Maybe he wins that case. By the logic you’ve just suggested, everything is back to normal, no harm done. But of course many people who have actually been falsely accused of something will tell you that no settlement of any kind ever completely restores their reputation. In fact, there are some pretty well-known legal cases in the U.S. where someone was falsely accused of some serious crime, and despite being completely cleared, has faced serious consequences indefinitely.

Now maybe it’s different with some bike race. After all, allowing someone to ride who is later ruled to be a cheat is not quite the same as being accused of rape or murder. But if it is different, it’s not because the rider can later be stripped, if necessary. That by itself is no guarantee that no harm has been done.

If you argue that stripping the rider of victory causes disrepute, then are you granting the race organiser the right to refuse to strip the rider of victory in order to protect the reputation or serenity or whatever of their event?
Come on, you’re more logical than that. It isn’t the stripping that causes disrepute, it’s the fact that someone was racing who everyone knew might subsequently be stripped. Even if the race organizers declined to strip the rider, they would still be in disrepute (to the extent that stripping would cause that).

If an election commission allowed someone to run for office who had been charged with murder, and following the election he was convicted of the crime, the commission would not be in disrepute because of the conviction, but because they allowed someone to run they knew might be convicted. Yes, the conviction prevents a murderer from holding office, but the commission shouldn't have had to depend on this.

Or let's take this back to the argument made several months ago now: if we're saying that someone potentially being stripped of victory can cause disrepute, where do we draw the line? If Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibility they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone dopes. So that embodiment of purity has to be pre-emptively banned and we get a wonderfully Orwellian scenario: to save the race from the potential of disrepute, you have to cause actual disrepute. Cause I think we'd all agree, there'd be quite the media storm if you banned Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is.
Beyond what I've just said about the flawed logic here, this hypothetical scenario also violates the 99% scenario I mentioned above. If the probability of an AAF (let alone no AAF) turning into a ADRV is < 1%, then you respect the rider's right to ride.

Just to be clear, I'm not pushing the idea of Froome's being not allowed to race, nor do I think he will be prevented from doing so. But this is the guy who said he acts in a way that is above and beyond just following the rules.
I have a feeling that Vegni knows pro cycling ...and maybe knows contract law, even better. I wouln't be too concerned about Vegni's abiilty to keep his hands up and protect himself at all times. ;) He should do so with great vigor. (Maybe Dawg will be riding for peanuts). :surprised:
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
So will Froome refund Vegni if he gets sanctioned during or after the Giro?
That, surely, is down to the terms of their contract, no? You'd probably like to think Vegni had a doping refund clause, but who knows, he doesn't always seem like the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, now does he?
Merckx index said:
Just because one has redress if something comes to pass doesn’t mean that one encourages that thing to pass. We could turn this logic around on Froome himself. Many people, of course, have accused Froome of doping, of intentionally taking performance enhancing substances. Suppose he’s exonerated, and wishes to claim damages against someone he feels wrongfully smeared him. Maybe he wins that case. By the logic you’ve just suggested, everything is back to normal, no harm done. But of course many people who have actually been falsely accused of something will tell you that no settlement of any kind ever completely restores their reputation. In fact, there are some pretty well-known legal cases in the U.S. where someone was falsely accused of some serious crime, and despite being completely cleared, has faced serious consequences indefinitely.
Don't confuse what you think I think is morally right and how I am saying the law operates. The law may very well be an ass (a hoofed mammal of the horse family, which is typically smaller than a horse and has longer ears and a braying call) (although I don't think even libel cases claim that the damages levied actually restore a reputation, they merely act as a suitable punishment). But it's the law.
Merckx index said:
Now maybe it’s different with some bike race. After all, allowing someone to ride who is later ruled to be a cheat is not quite the same as being accused of rape or murder. But if it is different, it’s not because the rider can later be stripped, if necessary. That by itself is no guarantee that no harm has been done.
I don't think the panel in the Valverde case said no harm would be done. But they did something you seem really, really unwilling to do: they looked at the harm that could be done to the athlete. Weighing the two, they found in favour of the athlete. It's not a case of no damage: for ***'s sake, the case itself was causing damage, even the panel said that, it's a case of which decision causes the least damage.
Merckx index said:
Just to be clear, I'm not pushing the idea of Froome's being not allowed to race, nor do I think he will be prevented from doing so. But this is the guy who said he acts in a way that is above and beyond just following the rules.
This to me is the whole problem here: you're bitching and moaning about the law when your real problem is - hold the front page! - Froome's just another hypocrite who says one thing and does another. You - and others round here - seem to be so offended by this that you're throwing objectivity out the window.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
...

If Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibility they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone dopes.
...
Good one!

But...Jesus was perfect, so I don't think his kidneys could malfunction. I don't think he could have asthma. Or bilharzia. Or a respiratory infection so strong he needed prednisone before smashing the field. Only a beautifully flawed human like Froome can power through such adversity.

I mean I'm no religious scholar, but wouldn't Jesus have been able to turn Salbutamol to water?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Beyond what I've just said about the flawed logic here, this hypothetical scenario also violates the 99% scenario I mentioned above. If the probability of an AAF (let alone no AAF) turning into a ADRV is < 1%, then you respect the rider's right to ride.
Calling all math geeks - run these numbers for me, please: the probability of Froome actually winning the Giro times the probability of his AAF becoming an ADRV, times the probability of the sanction stripping him of results between the date of the offence and the date of sanction. Cause even with my Texas Instruments TI-30XIIS™ Scientific Calculator, I'm *** if I can get an answer based on the information currently available to us. (Please show your workings.)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
veganrob said:
As it relates to this case it has no bearing. Whatever you or I or anybody think about privacy means nothing to the outcome
It does have a bearing but it can be hard to see. Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute. In the Valverde case, the panel noted that the UCI's attempts to ban the Spaniard, and others (Bettini), were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds than the presence of Valverde and the other riders. How you separate the man from the media storm I don't know (to quote Yeats, "How can we know the dancer from the dance?") but it appears to be an important issue in disrepute cases. I think there would be a good chance - better than evens - that the Chambre, should the matter get there, would say that Froome is not responsible for the damaging media storm, the person who leaked, or authorised the leaking, of the story is.
Harrington of BC. Who selected Froome to ride in the Worlds knowing he had the AAF hanging over him. Lecturing us on disrepute. And you're holding her up as an exemplar :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
veganrob said:
As it relates to this case it has no bearing. Whatever you or I or anybody think about privacy means nothing to the outcome
It does have a bearing but it can be hard to see. Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute. In the Valverde case, the panel noted that the UCI's attempts to ban the Spaniard, and others (Bettini), were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds than the presence of Valverde and the other riders. How you separate the man from the media storm I don't know (to quote Yeats, "How can we know the dancer from the dance?") but it appears to be an important issue in disrepute cases. I think there would be a good chance - better than evens - that the Chambre, should the matter get there, would say that Froome is not responsible for the damaging media storm, the person who leaked, or authorised the leaking, of the story is.
Harrington of BC. Who selected Froome to ride in the Worlds knowing he had the AAF hanging over him. Lecturing us on disrepute. And you're holding her up as an exemplar :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh WP, when oh when will you understand...
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
veganrob said:
As it relates to this case it has no bearing. Whatever you or I or anybody think about privacy means nothing to the outcome
It does have a bearing but it can be hard to see. Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute. In the Valverde case, the panel noted that the UCI's attempts to ban the Spaniard, and others (Bettini), were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds than the presence of Valverde and the other riders. How you separate the man from the media storm I don't know (to quote Yeats, "How can we know the dancer from the dance?") but it appears to be an important issue in disrepute cases. I think there would be a good chance - better than evens - that the Chambre, should the matter get there, would say that Froome is not responsible for the damaging media storm, the person who leaked, or authorised the leaking, of the story is.
Harrington of BC. Who selected Froome to ride in the Worlds knowing he had the AAF hanging over him. Lecturing us on disrepute. And you're holding her up as an exemplar :lol:
Oh WP, when oh when will you understand...
Is that that all you got, dude? :rolleyes:

You knew (although you hoped no one would notice) that, when you cited BC's CEO Harrington as objective exemplar on the disrepute issue, that Harrington's BC selected Froome for the Worlds in full knowledge of his AAF

So I understand very well what we're seeing here, thanks. Anyone without skin in the game can see it too. It's hiding in plain sight, as usual

Btw, I would love to be a fly on the wall in one of your editorial meetings. Hee that thought is making me chuckle :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
veganrob said:
As it relates to this case it has no bearing. Whatever you or I or anybody think about privacy means nothing to the outcome
It does have a bearing but it can be hard to see. Froome's AAF, in and of itself, may not actually be causing disrepute: as Julie Harrington said, the leaking of it, the reporting of it, is causing disrepute. In the Valverde case, the panel noted that the UCI's attempts to ban the Spaniard, and others (Bettini), were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds than the presence of Valverde and the other riders. How you separate the man from the media storm I don't know (to quote Yeats, "How can we know the dancer from the dance?") but it appears to be an important issue in disrepute cases. I think there would be a good chance - better than evens - that the Chambre, should the matter get there, would say that Froome is not responsible for the damaging media storm, the person who leaked, or authorised the leaking, of the story is.
Harrington of BC. Who selected Froome to ride in the Worlds knowing he had the AAF hanging over him. Lecturing us on disrepute. And you're holding her up as an exemplar :lol: :lol: :lol:
You hit the nail on the head. Each instance is adjucated on it’s own. No precedence is followed. It’s as simple as that, although commonality can be linked between cases but no presiding judge, panel or selector refer to previous cases.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Merckx index said:
So will Froome refund Vegni if he gets sanctioned during or after the Giro?
That, surely, is down to the terms of their contract, no? You'd probably like to think Vegni had a doping refund clause, but who knows, he doesn't always seem like the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, now does he?
Merckx index said:
Just because one has redress if something comes to pass doesn’t mean that one encourages that thing to pass. We could turn this logic around on Froome himself. Many people, of course, have accused Froome of doping, of intentionally taking performance enhancing substances. Suppose he’s exonerated, and wishes to claim damages against someone he feels wrongfully smeared him. Maybe he wins that case. By the logic you’ve just suggested, everything is back to normal, no harm done. But of course many people who have actually been falsely accused of something will tell you that no settlement of any kind ever completely restores their reputation. In fact, there are some pretty well-known legal cases in the U.S. where someone was falsely accused of some serious crime, and despite being completely cleared, has faced serious consequences indefinitely.
Don't confuse what you think I think is morally right and how I am saying the law operates. The law may very well be an *** (a hoofed mammal of the horse family, which is typically smaller than a horse and has longer ears and a braying call) (although I don't think even libel cases claim that the damages levied actually restore a reputation, they merely act as a suitable punishment). But it's the law.
Merckx index said:
Now maybe it’s different with some bike race. After all, allowing someone to ride who is later ruled to be a cheat is not quite the same as being accused of rape or murder. But if it is different, it’s not because the rider can later be stripped, if necessary. That by itself is no guarantee that no harm has been done.
I don't think the panel in the Valverde case said no harm would be done. But they did something you seem really, really unwilling to do: they looked at the harm that could be done to the athlete. Weighing the two, they found in favour of the athlete. It's not a case of no damage: for ****'s sake, the case itself was causing damage, even the panel said that, it's a case of which decision causes the least damage.
Merckx index said:
Just to be clear, I'm not pushing the idea of Froome's being not allowed to race, nor do I think he will be prevented from doing so. But this is the guy who said he acts in a way that is above and beyond just following the rules.
This to me is the whole problem here: you're bitching and moaning about the law when your real problem is - hold the front page! - Froome's just another hypocrite who says one thing and does another. You - and others round here - seem to be so offended by this that you're throwing objectivity out the window.
No, if there has been misrepresentation to induce a party to contract the terms of the contract mean nothing. It will be rolled back.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY