Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1171 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Looks like a deliberate delay by the UCI. They have their own "anti doping tribunal" (remember, the kangaroo court instituted by Crookson) delay it until after the Giro so that there are no bad headlines, and certainly nothing during the Giro. What they don't realize or seem to willingly accept is that if they delay a decision till the time between Giro and Tour, Froome will obviously appeal that to the CAS (the real court) and those proceedings are guaranteed to take longer than the Tour. So he gets to ride/win both.
 
Re:

hazaran said:
Looks like a deliberate delay by the UCI. They have their own "anti doping tribunal" (remember, the kangaroo court instituted by Crookson) delay it until after the Giro so that there are no bad headlines, and certainly nothing during the Giro. What they don't realize or seem to willingly accept is that if they delay a decision till the time between Giro and Tour, Froome will obviously appeal that to the CAS (the real court) and those proceedings are guaranteed to take longer than the Tour. So he gets to ride/win both.
While the older Cardoso and Sanchez cases remain unresolved, I'm not sure any of the delays are deliberate. I think the UCI processes just take a really long time. Froome's case may actually highlight the inadequacy of the UCI's processes and cause reform.
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
hazaran said:
Looks like a deliberate delay by the UCI. They have their own "anti doping tribunal" (remember, the kangaroo court instituted by Crookson) delay it until after the Giro so that there are no bad headlines, and certainly nothing during the Giro. What they don't realize or seem to willingly accept is that if they delay a decision till the time between Giro and Tour, Froome will obviously appeal that to the CAS (the real court) and those proceedings are guaranteed to take longer than the Tour. So he gets to ride/win both.
While the older Cardoso and Sanchez cases remain unresolved, I'm not sure any of the delays are deliberate. I think the UCI processes just take a really long time. Froome's case may actually highlight the inadequacy of the UCI's processes and cause reform.
Well, Crookson "reformed" them, that's how we got this anti doping tribunal. But make no mistake. The anti doping tribunal is the UCI and the UCI is the party supposed to push for a ban. Their role in this whole process is to merely look at the lab evidence and then hand out the penalty as stated in the code. They are not supposed to interpret the code or to doubt/check the test validity. That is meant to happen at the CAS, which will collect evidence, hear experts and then make a decision as an independent third-party.
 
Re: Re:

hazaran said:
Well, Crookson "reformed" them, that's how we got this anti doping tribunal. But make no mistake. The anti doping tribunal is the UCI and the UCI is the party supposed to push for a ban. Their role in this whole process is to merely look at the lab evidence and then hand out the penalty as stated in the code. They are not supposed to interpret the code or to doubt/check the test validity. That is meant to happen at the CAS, which will collect evidence, hear experts and then make a decision as an independent third-party.
You can't ban someone without a hearing. CAS is not an anti-doping tribunal, it is for appealing anti-doping cases.

If the UCI handed out a ban without a hearing the defendant would walk free at CAS and sue the hell out of UCI.

As for Cookson's reform - it was what everyone was asking for, an anti-doping process independent of UCI management.
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
hazaran said:
Well, Crookson "reformed" them, that's how we got this anti doping tribunal. But make no mistake. The anti doping tribunal is the UCI and the UCI is the party supposed to push for a ban. Their role in this whole process is to merely look at the lab evidence and then hand out the penalty as stated in the code. They are not supposed to interpret the code or to doubt/check the test validity. That is meant to happen at the CAS, which will collect evidence, hear experts and then make a decision as an independent third-party.
You can't ban someone without a hearing. CAS is not an anti-doping tribunal, it is for appealing anti-doping cases.

If the UCI handed out a ban without a hearing the defendant would walk free at CAS and sue the hell out of UCI.

As for Cookson's reform - it was what everyone was asking for, an anti-doping process independent of UCI management.
The whole point of the reform was that you wanted something which would strictly apply the procedure and WADA code - no local anti doping agencies that protect the local hero, forcing WADA to appeal to CAS (aka Contador case). That's why we have the UCI handling this in the first place. Only Crookson of course decided his UCI couldn't be trusted with this either, and who would disagree given it's history, so they made up the anti doping tribunal. But really the point of it is to make decisions that can be summed up as "the laboratory evidence is clear, the length of suspension from the WADA code is X months, we reject your explanations" in so many words. Yes they need to have a hearing and follow procedure but they are in the unique position to simply reject any explanation or challenge by the rider without much of any explanation from their side - most of the violations we are talking about will be statutory anyway. The place for challenging that stuff is at CAS.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-will-not-be-resolved-before-the-giro-ditalia/
UCI president David Lappartient has all but conceded that Chris Froome will be able to ride the Giro d'Italia, saying a verdict on his salbutamol case is more likely to be reached before the Tour de France in July.
First part of the "Dawg Defense" (tm) done! Now to drag it on to August.
Reading between the lines, Froomey has been slapped with an ADRV, can't see how judge Ulrich will rule in his favor. He'll get his suspension between Giro and Tour so most likely he will not be in France. CAS decision probably during autumn.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-will-not-be-resolved-before-the-giro-ditalia/
UCI president David Lappartient has all but conceded that Chris Froome will be able to ride the Giro d'Italia, saying a verdict on his salbutamol case is more likely to be reached before the Tour de France in July.
First part of the "Dawg Defense" (tm) done! Now to drag it on to August.
Reading between the lines, Froomey has been slapped with an ADRV, can't see how judge Ulrich will rule in his favor. He'll get his suspension between Giro and Tour so most likely he will not be in France. CAS decision probably during autumn.
I thinks it's the better solution, for us and him too. 24 days in France would be hard
 
Re:

hazaran said:
Looks like a deliberate delay by the UCI. They have their own "anti doping tribunal" (remember, the kangaroo court instituted by Crookson) delay it until after the Giro so that there are no bad headlines, and certainly nothing during the Giro.
I agree with you that they don't want to announce any ban during the Giro. But iFroome were banned before the Giro, and couldn't ride it, why would the headlines be worse than if he were banned after the Giro, particularly if he won? The latter scenario would certainly be worse if the ban were back-dated and he was stripped of the Giro results. Even if the ban were proactive, which it very likely could be, it would still look bad for someone to be banned right after riding a GT for an offense that occurred before that GT.

As Lappartient said, Froome has good lawyers and a lot of resources. If he's pushing some wild theory to explain his positive, that could take a long time. And given that Froome has said on the record that he thinks any ban will be proactive, of course he perceives it's to his advantage to delay the decision until after the Giro. He would probably like to delay the decision till after the Tour, too, but given where the case seems to be now, that would be very hard to do without his being held responsible for the delay, and possibly getting a worse penalty because of that.

The really bad publicity, it seems to me, is slipping under the radar. Lappartient used the term ADRV. Someone with an ADRV is not supposed to be able to ride till the case is settled. Technically, Froome can ride, because the Tribunal has to make the final decision, but make no mistake. If LADS has proposed a ban, the Tribunal is basically a court of appeal. By the spirit if not the letter of the rules, Froome's case has progressed beyond an AAF--certainly beyond the kind of AAF that doesn't mandate a suspension.

This goes back to the rationale for specified substances. Why is someone who tests over the limit for sablutamol allowed to keep racing? Because it's recognized that there is a greater likelihood for an innocent explanation than for non-specified substances. IOW, the probability of the AAF becoming an ADRV is a little lower. But now that LADS has apparently declared that it is an ADRV, that rationale clearly no longer applies. The odds that Froome will be banned have gone up. By the intent of the rules, he should not be allowed to ride at this point.

What they don't realize or seem to willingly accept is that if they delay a decision till the time between Giro and Tour, Froome will obviously appeal that to the CAS (the real court) and those proceedings are guaranteed to take longer than the Tour. So he gets to ride/win both.
No. If Froome is banned between the Giro and the Tour, the ban goes into effect immediately. So assuming it is proactive--or if it's back-dated for a year or more--he can't ride the Tour while the case is being appealed to CAS.

Meanwhile, Lappartient still can't come out and say whether there was an Acceptance of Consequences letter which Froome rejected. Using the term ADRV certainly strongly suggests there was, but it would be nice to have clarification. My guess is that a hearing, if there is one, has been scheduled shortly after the Giro. It's also possible, though, that the hearing could take place right before the Giro. There are usually several weeks or more between the hearing and the decision, so in that case the decision would still come after the Giro.
 
If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is an independent tribunal, does Lappartient have the right to decide when the case will be heard?
or if the case is taken under advisement, its duration. If you are independant, you are the one who decide of your calendar?
 
Re:

CTQ said:
If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is an independent tribunal, does Lappartient have the right to decide when the case will be heard?
or if the case is taken under advisement, its duration. If you are independant, you are the one who decide of your calendar?
Lappartient has no power to determine the course of the case. That's why he periodically has made statements to the press urging the parties along, because that's the only thing he can do.

After being appointed, the judge asks the defendants to provide documents presenting their case, and in principle, they have only a few weeks to do this. But as usual in legal matters, they can ask for extensions. I assume Froome's team has done this. At some point, the judge will usually say, enough, this phase is done, and schedule a hearing. But there is flexibility on that, too, since the sides have to find a date convenient to both. Or the judge may decide that no hearing is necessary, but again, I believe either side can challenge that decision, too.
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
rick james said:
So this thread is back to posters posting gibberish
Well you just made it official
LMAO, as the youngsters might say! Thank you for a chuckle and for letting me use this as an opportunity to bump the Froome thread back to the top of the Clinic listing, where it belongs, as Froomey is, in my mind, the dodgiest rider in history. Ciao!
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
pastronef said:
TourOfSardinia said:
royal we pastronef
:confused:
we as the Italian public.
I like your positive vibes, Pastronef.

Let the authorities deal with Froome. I'm sure that the Italian public and their love of pro cycling will set a good example of how to be good fans under challenging circumstances.
luckily the crowds on the roads are way less Froome/Sky focused than us here in the forum
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
Rollthedice said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-will-not-be-resolved-before-the-giro-ditalia/
UCI president David Lappartient has all but conceded that Chris Froome will be able to ride the Giro d'Italia, saying a verdict on his salbutamol case is more likely to be reached before the Tour de France in July.
First part of the "Dawg Defense" (tm) done! Now to drag it on to August.
Reading between the lines, Froomey has been slapped with an ADRV, can't see how judge Ulrich will rule in his favor. He'll get his suspension between Giro and Tour so most likely he will not be in France. CAS decision probably during autumn.
I thinks it's the better solution, for us and him too. 24 days in France would be hard
Is it not possible that Vegni could refuse Froome a start at the 11th hour, then in turn, drag any resulting legal action from his team past the Tour, where he may (or may not) get sanctioned too... This may have been discussed before, apologise if it's been done to death before... the race directors can't be that hamstrung as not to have legal rights as well...
 
Re: Re:

S2Sturges said:
pastronef said:
Rollthedice said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-will-not-be-resolved-before-the-giro-ditalia/
UCI president David Lappartient has all but conceded that Chris Froome will be able to ride the Giro d'Italia, saying a verdict on his salbutamol case is more likely to be reached before the Tour de France in July.
First part of the "Dawg Defense" (tm) done! Now to drag it on to August.
Reading between the lines, Froomey has been slapped with an ADRV, can't see how judge Ulrich will rule in his favor. He'll get his suspension between Giro and Tour so most likely he will not be in France. CAS decision probably during autumn.
I thinks it's the better solution, for us and him too. 24 days in France would be hard
Is it not possible that Vegni could refuse Froome a start at the 11th hour, then in turn, drag any resulting legal action from his team past the Tour, where he may (or may not) get sanctioned too... This may have been discussed before, apologise if it's been done to death before... the race directors can't be that hamstrung as not to have legal rights as well...
Oh please...not again; i think its safe to say that yes, it has been done to death before. Very recently in fact...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY