Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1172 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
gillan1969 said:
after providing us with the most incredulous transformation, the most incredulous riding style and one of the most incredulous doping positives...the least we deserve is a highly amusing and non-orthodox suspension...
Knew a runner ...his countrymen called him "Lurch" ... in relation to his apparent gangly running style.

27:48 10,000M :surprised:
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Is it not possible that Vegni could refuse Froome a start at the 11th hour,
Optimum stop time might be Monday, May 7 Rest Day.
That way the paymasters have had their show:
I.C.A v. CF/TeamSky
If only there wasn't such a thing as reality. And a race jury that would have to make that decision. And TVD into whose lap such a decision would ultimately fall. But, you know, ignore that, live the dream...
 
Re: Re:

S2Sturges said:
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...
What mechanism are you imagining Vegni has at his disposal?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
S2Sturges said:
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...
What mechanism are you imagining Vegni has at his disposal?
Too late now, Vegni won't do it. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vegni-i-cant-stop-chris-froome-racing-the-giro-ditalia/

I went back and reread that article. Vegni, if he's truly committed to a clean(er) race vs. eyeballs/clicks, last fall would have pressured the UCI to come up with some sort of deadline to resolve the case.

As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result. But I think the time for initiating that action has sailed. At this point a judge would probably say, You've known about this for 5 months, so why now?

The whole thing is a clusterf**k. I have largely given Froome the benefit of the doubt in the past, but the way he and Sky have conducted themselves following the AAF has "flipped" me.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
after providing us with the most incredulous transformation, the most incredulous riding style and one of the most incredulous doping positives...the least we deserve is a highly amusing and non-orthodox suspension...
Knew a runner ...his countrymen called him "Lurch" ... in relation to his apparent gangly running style.

27:48 10,000M :surprised:
That case together with the Froome case show that there is hope for us all to run 10 km under 28 minutes or win a couple of TdF's if we just take incredulous amount of salbutamol in one day :geek:
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Bolder said:
I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved.
Certain you are? Want to bet on it?
I wouldn't want to bet on anything involving the Italian court system! But I do think that if Vegni had the will to pressure the UCI on Froome, he could have found a way to do so...
 
Re: Re:

Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
Damages or losing the Vuelta? Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers. I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud. If you actually believe in him and Sky, I feel sorry for you, if you are trolling on his behalf, I feel even more sorry for you.
 
Re: Re:

Bolder said:
fmk_RoI said:
Bolder said:
I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved.
Certain you are? Want to bet on it?
I wouldn't want to bet on anything involving the Italian court system! But I do think that if Vegni had the will to pressure the UCI on Froome, he could have found a way to do so...
Given the certainty with which you said there is a way, perhaps you could offer suggestions? Or even some similar examples that went the civil route...
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers.
This is what I love about so many people round here. For them, rules are only the things you can beat athletes over the head with, rest of the time you can just make em up as you go along, and as soon as anyone says, well, actually, no, rules is rules, we all have to follow them, painful as that can at times be, you just dismiss that person as a fanboy. Cause only fanboys support the fair and honest application of the rules...
ferryman said:
I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud.
Given that I am not English, clearly you don't get the English angle. But hey, you know what Wilde said about patriotism: it's the last refuge of the scoundrel. And you're the one taking refuge in it sunshine...
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Parker said:
Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
Damages or losing the Vuelta? Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers. I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud. If you actually believe in him and Sky, I feel sorry for you, if you are trolling on his behalf, I feel even more sorry for you.
Well ... I am partial to Basil Fawlty ... but nowt else in my passport to show me as British, English, UK-ish, Great Britain-ish. But ... aye ... I dooooo like me chances goin mano a mano on thee old Queen's English, lad.

So ... in all honesty ... that's not a factor for me and some others on here who are tarred with a fanboi feather. Very, very simple. Froome may be a big time doper. But I, like you, have NO WAY OF KNOWING that. So, my approach ... is to let the process run its course, respect the UCI's/WADA's process, respect the rider's rights. (Don't start on the "Italian Public" or "French Public" ... races in disrepute thang. We've all had a smorgasbord of BS on this and can't stomach another bite.) If the relevant authorities sanction him ... there will me no blip on my fanboi radar. Nada. If he walks ... continues to race, continues to win ... fine, as well. I'd love to see TD take him out ... but the half life of race favorite loss disappointment is ... like ... about three minutes for me. So there you have it ... my profile ... my reason for being a Froome defender ... a Froome fanboi ... a Sky lapdog. Now ... tell me. What's wrong with that ...?
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Parker said:
Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
Damages or losing the Vuelta? Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers. I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud. If you actually believe in him and Sky, I feel sorry for you, if you are trolling on his behalf, I feel even more sorry for you.
clinic members have been supportive of many dopers, preferring one doper to another. cycling is about that I seem to understand.
no need to believe, I am Italian, I like hiow Froome drives people mad and hope he keeps doing it.
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Parker said:
Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
Damages or losing the Vuelta? Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers. I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud. If you actually believe in him and Sky, I feel sorry for you, if you are trolling on his behalf, I feel even more sorry for you.
All I'm saying is that the Giro or any other race will not sue him for damages. mI said nothing about the Vuelta. I expect him to lose that and get a ban.
However, I also don't think that a single spike in salbutamol levels is obvious evidence of a huge doping programme. If you think that attitude makes me so sort of deluded person to be pitied that's just you one-eyed prejudice talking. You seem very angry that other people don't share your views. It suggests a lack of confidence in them.

PS Like Fmk and pastronef, I'm not English (and neither is Froome frankly).
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
ferryman said:
Parker said:
Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
Damages or losing the Vuelta? Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers. I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud. If you actually believe in him and Sky, I feel sorry for you, if you are trolling on his behalf, I feel even more sorry for you.
Well ... I am partial to Basil Fawlty ... but nowt else in my passport to show me as British, English, UK-ish, Great Britain-ish. But ... aye ... I dooooo like me chances goin mano a mano on thee old Queen's English, lad.

So ... in all honesty ... that's not a factor for me and some others on here who are tarred with a fanboi feather. Very, very simple. Froome may be a big time doper. But I, like you, have NO WAY OF KNOWING that. So, my approach ... is to let the process run its course, respect the UCI's/WADA's process, respect the rider's rights. (Don't start on the "Italian Public" or "French Public" ... races in disrepute thang. We've all had a smorgasbord of BS on this and can't stomach another bite.) If the relevant authorities sanction him ... there will me no blip on my fanboi radar. Nada. If he walks ... continues to race, continues to win ... fine, as well. I'd love to see TD take him out ... but the half life of race favorite loss disappointment is ... like ... about three minutes for me. So there you have it ... my profile ... my reason for being a Froome defender ... a Froome fanboi ... a Sky lapdog. Now ... tell me. What's wrong with that ...?
you have no way of knowing????

what do you think actually happened in late summer 2011?

It's reminiscent of the judas priest fans who didn't know rob was gay....... :D
 
I have watched this debate over the months with interest. It's now fashionable to declare where one stands nationally. I am English and therefore British. Froome is British but not English. I never liked him very much and he may "go down" as they say, but let's be fair.

The regulations in the WADA code include the oft-quoted one about Salbutamol and other Beta-2 agonists and include the following:-

"Except:

Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours;
in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose;
Inhaled formoterol: maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours;
Inhaled salmeterol: maximum 200 micrograms over 24 hours.

The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above."

Now I find the word "unless" significant. "Unless" is a condition but it is implied that it has to be satisfied after the measurement has been taken. The measurement itself therefore cannot constitute an AAF unless the athlete fails to satisfy the condition. On the normal meaning of the words there ought not even be deemed to be an AAF until the athlete has given up on trying to prove what he must prove to avoid it. He must have have that opportunity if he wishes to take that line.

To me that justifies the fact that he is permitted to ride until the case is resolved and thereafter it depends on how it turns out.

At the end of the day it's a job of work. Every professional athlete depends on sport for his/her income and it's not for us to say that should be suspended in this case.

I thought I would come out of commenting semi-retirement to offer this argued position.
 
70kmph said:
Vegni himself:
«Non ho la possibilità di escludere Froome dal prossimo Giro. Se cercassi di farlo, rischierei un’eventuale azione legale della Sky perché non ci sono gli estremi normativi per chiudere la porta in faccia a un corridore che fino a prova contraria non è risultato positivo al doping».
Which is something like
"I don't have the possibility to exclude Froome from the Giro. If I tried to do it, I'd risk a possible legal action by Sky because there are no rules to stop a rider entering who, until proven otherwise, wasn't positive for doping."
Someone with a better grasp of Italian can tidy that up...but the gist seems pretty clear...
 
70kmph said:
Giorgio Viberti of La Stampa contradicts the established notion that CF is paying
Morgan (not Sky) by writing:
Sky, che nel frattempo ha già speso in avvocati e perizie legali oltre 7 milioni di euro.
which translates to:
Sky, who in the meantime have already spent over 7 million euros in lawyers and legal reports.
No mention of Sky paying back in December:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-hires-former-bruyneel-and-contador-lawyer-for-salbutamol-case/
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
How would Team Sky come up with 7 million euros? That's a good chunk of their yearly budget. Not to mention more than a years worth of earnings for Froome, which would already put him well beyond the "opportunity cost" of defending this.

No. 7 million is what Armstrong is paying for his multi-year, federal trial with a billion witnesses. Froomes case hasn't even seen a real court yet, he is well under even half a million.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts