Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1170 - 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:
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 you appear to be either unwilling or unable to read what I've written, we're going to deal with one thing at a time WP: which part of what I have already explained about the importance of the Astana and Boonen cases have you not understood? Do you require me to cut and paste what's already been posted? Do you expect me to repeat myself using different words? What is your problem here?

I've been very civil and patient with you so far WP, despite the ease and frequency with which you hurl the label fanboy at people you disagree with, which frequently includes me. If you want to ditch the civility and go back to name calling, can I politely suggest you pick a fight with someone else? Cause it bores the tits off me.
OK, so the more I press you to back up your theories the more you slide away :rolleyes:

Btw "I've been very civil and patient with you so far" :lol: :lol:

I rest my case, your honour ;)
Have to agreewitn you WP; the Boonen example is a poor one. Boonen at the time was facing criminal charges for his cocaine use, additionally many in the sport including the ASO were worried about him and wanted him to seek counselling and rehabilitation for what was generally accepted at the time that TB had a very bad alcohol problem which lead to cocaine use. The UCI did attempt to suspended him under the former rule of harming the image of the sport which didn’t come to much. Boonen eventually appealed to the French Olympic Committee for the ASO ban. The parallels between the Froome and Boonen cases are few and far between.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Have to agreewitn you WP; the Boonen example is a poor one. Boonen at the time was facing criminal charges for his cocaine use, additionally many in the sport including the ASO were worried about him and wanted him to seek counselling and rehabilitation for what was generally accepted at the time that TB had a very bad alcohol problem which lead to cocaine use. The UCI did attempt to suspended him under the former rule of harming the image of the sport which didn’t come to much. Boonen eventually appealed to the French Olympic Committee for the ASO ban. The parrellls between the Froome and Boonen cases are few and far between.
Another who can't be bothered reading what's written. You make a wonderful pair.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Have to agreewitn you WP; the Boonen example is a poor one. Boonen at the time was facing criminal charges for his cocaine use, additionally many in the sport including the ASO were worried about him and wanted him to seek counselling and rehabilitation for what was generally accepted at the time that TB had a very bad alcohol problem which lead to cocaine use. The UCI did attempt to suspended him under the former rule of harming the image of the sport which didn’t come to much. Boonen eventually appealed to the French Olympic Committee for the ASO ban. The parrellls between the Froome and Boonen cases are few and far between.
Another who can't be bothered reading what's written. You make a wonderful pair.
No, not really. You’ve just told everyone else they’re wrong and refuse to accept an alternate opinion other than your own. Your usual shtick.

The disparity and time between the two cases makes it a poor example.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
The disparity and time between the two cases makes it a poor example.
Keep saying that. The more it's repeated, the more true it becomes. It doesn't relate in any way to what I posted but hey, if it keeps you happy, that's all that counts.
Keep saying what? Have no idea what you are talking about sometimes, you get so caught up attempting to be right you forget what your original argument was.

Regardless, the Boonen example is a poor one, it was over ten years ago. Anti-doping has changed, the rules have changed and the relationship between the ASO and the UCI has changed. The other differing factor was the ASO met with the team. They were genuinely worried about Boonen and his health. In Froome’s case, not.

Find a better example before lambasting everyone with righteousness, it’s Easter for crying out loud! :cool:
 
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.
Ulrich Haas was on Petacchi's panel when he made his appeal to CAS and got his nice sanction there
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.
 
Re: Re:

Summoned said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.

Heck you can even add to all of this that Spain didn't have any anti-doping laws during this time either. They put anti-doping laws on the books after Valverde and Contador's bans were over.
 
so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.
 
Re: Re:

Summoned said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.
What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.

So no idea what FMK and his magical: “I’ve been telling you all for 2 months” is about in relation to Valverde and precedent. Sure, it’s his opinion, which is perfectly fine but some how he’s trying to infer his opinion is the only opinion.

I mean heck you could compare different Clenbutrol cases and each of the various appeals and have a different decision on each one.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Summoned said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.
What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.

So no idea what FMK and his magical: “I’ve been telling you all for 2 months” is about in relation to Valverde and precedent. Sure, it’s his opinion, which is perfectly fine but some how he’s trying to infer his opinion is the only opinion.

I mean heck you could compare different Clenbutrol cases and each of the various appeals and have a different decision on each one.
Valverde, Boonen and FMK aside (no offence,man) ... straight up question, dee Hog .....

What do you really think is the chance that ASO will try to bar Dawg from riding the TDF?

ASO has distanced itself from the News.com.au (website) story that claimed that ASO was seriously considering this move (of course, this distancing does not mean they won't). It's all Cost-Benefit Analysis, is it not?

"Disrepute"? ... euphemism for "will we lose money." ASO's not the County Sports Council. MegaCorporateSportsConglomerate. Do they want to run the legal gauntlets of such a gesture?

Do they want to weather a nuclear war between L'Equipe and The Guardian when some journo pens the article ... "ASO and Lapartient Give Bardet and France the Break They Need."
 
Re:

AussieGoddess said:
so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.
well, that's a lie
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
AussieGoddess said:
so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.
well, that's a lie
in a world full of grey's there's always some that like to stick in their comfort zone of black and white....
 
Re:

AussieGoddess said:
so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.
I am unsure whether you a lawyer or not - Though if you are a lawyer, then I'm surprised at your attitude - The only reason Froome is bringing the sport into disrepute ( at the moment ) is because the Froome case was leaked to the media - It should have remained confidential until Froome is sanctioned - I believe the UCI is causing any disrepute.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
And that is irrelevant to the point Aussie Goddess is making. Call it an open AAF if it makes you feel better. AG's point still stands.
Maybe ... maybe not.

Dawg’s AAF is not an ‘absolute liability’ (so to speak) offense such as would be a finding of Clenbuterol. IF he can explain the levels, he may be exonerated. Therefore, perhaps considered less egregious, at this point, therefore
less chance of his pending case being seen as bringing disrepute to the sport, god forbid.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
AussieGoddess said:
so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.
I am unsure whether you a lawyer or not - Though if you are a lawyer, then I'm surprised at your attitude - The only reason Froome is bringing the sport into disrepute ( at the moment ) is because the Froome case was leaked to the media - It should have remained confidential until Froome is sanctioned - I believe the UCI is causing any disrepute.
Agree ... and the media circus is getting its share of kicks in to establish the said conjured atmosphere of disrepute.
 
Re:

AussieGoddess said:
You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.
I don't care about the differences, you refuse to acknowledge the points where they are exactly the same. Go us!
AussieGoddess said:
And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?
Bert rode the race with an appeal and a potential ban hanging over his head: just why didn't that bring disrepute to the race? Oh, I remember now! He sucked royally!
AussieGoddess said:
but your not trolling. right.
The second last refuge of the scoundrel: call the person you disagree with a troll. Go you!
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
macbindle said:
And that is irrelevant to the point Aussie Goddess is making. Call it an open AAF if it makes you feel better. AG's point still stands.
Maybe ... maybe not.

Dawg’s AAF is not an ‘absolute liability’ (so to speak) offense such as would be a finding of Clenbuterol. IF he can explain the levels, he may be exonerated. Therefore, perhaps considered less egregious, at this point, therefore
less chance of his pending case being seen as bringing disrepute to the sport, god forbid.
I don't disagree with that, but I'm commenting on Aussie Godess's point that Contador had already been exonerated.
 
Re: Re:

Summoned said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.
Try focusing on the points of law made clear in the judgement...
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.
It's funny, it's you and WP seem determined to bring the issue of precedent into this. Why do you think that might be? As for there being no official record of decision? Say the *** what? Seriously, say the *** what? CAS publishes, IIRC the stat, something like 30% of its judgements. And one of those published judgements is the Valverde case.

So, once again, here we have TheHog stating something that is blatantly, patently untrue. Why does that keep happening? And why the hell don't we have some sort of rule against the blatant telling of such porkies?
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Regardless, the Boonen example is a poor one, it was over ten years ago.
Here's a question for you people: if June 2009 to April 2018 is less than nine years, why would anyone believe anything uttered by someone who claims with such confidence and conviction that it's actually more than ten years? Is it the case that you simply believe what you want to believe around here? Is it simply a case that you really, really, really want there to be some way of stopping Froome from riding the Tour and so you're willing to tell reality it can go and hang while you live in a fantasy world of magic math and imagined rule infringements? Cause that's what it looks like.
 
Re:

AussieGoddess said:
so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.
Salient bit of data you're rushing through the station, A.G. ;)
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Summoned said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.
OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.
Try focusing on the points of law made clear in the judgement...
OK, looking through the CAS database, the relevant case appears to be this one - http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1381.pdf. I am only able to view this in French, so I may not be looking at the correct case, and as I am not able to read French, am not able to understand the points of law made in the judgment if this is the correct case. Would you be able to confirm this is the correct judgment, and, perhaps, able to comment on points of law are germane to the Froome issue?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.
It's funny, it's you and WP seem determined to bring the issue of precedent into this. Why do you think that might be? As for there being no official record of decision? Say the **** what? Seriously, say the **** what? CAS publishes, IIRC the stat, something like 30% of its judgements. And one of those published judgements is the Valverde case.

So, once again, here we have TheHog stating something that is blatantly, patently untrue. Why does that keep happening? And why the hell don't we have some sort of rule against the blatant telling of such porkies?
I honestly think you have a trouble reading. You’re so caught up in trying to be right you don’t actually read anyone’s post.

There is no doctrine of precedent in sports law, none. Unless it reaches the actual court system precedent does not exist. A case can be referred but no judge is required to follow the decisions before it. It’s really simple and has been discussed in great detail in many law publication due to the lack of consistency in publication.

The need for predictability requires not only awards to be published, but also to be promptly published after they are rendered. The potential disputing parties might have an interest in having previous awards available quickly. In this regard the above-mentioned role of precedents in CAS jurisprudence plays again a significant role. It has been noticed how some decisions are based on solutions adopted in previous awards that have not yet been published.[17] Having the award readily at disposal is necessary for the parties’ legal argumentation. This way the party’s counsel can, respectively, either use the award as a valid leg to bolster her arguments or criticise the position recently adopted by a panel on the same issue.[18] Additionally, a more systematic publication of recent awards online would significantly contribute to increase the level of transparency at the CAS, as the web represents a great opportunity for the public in terms of speed and accessibility. On the CAS website it is possible to find a section specifically dedicated to ‘recent decisions’. This section, though, does not seem to be organised as systematically as it could be. The CAS’ policy regarding the recent decision section of its website is extremely confusing. It includes some awards from 2016 and 2015, but not all the awards from these years available in the CAS database, as well as older awards from 2012 and 2011, which can hardly count as ‘recent decisions’. Apart from the consideration that “these awards disappear from the website after a few weeks and it is not possible to find them anymore”[19], a more systematic publication of the recent awards would be desirable. A valid model to follow has been identified in the websites of the Italian Camera di conciliazione e di arbitrato per lo sport (CCAS) and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports (CCES), where the decisions taken are systematically published without excessive delay.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY