• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1173 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
rick james said:
Mayomaniac said:
Koronin said:
7 million? I could retire on that.
Yeah, pretty much everyone could retire on that.
I couldn’t, I’d need double that just for the hookers and cocaine
In Scotland? Don’t lie.
Good cycle for you today, one of the best places in Scotland to ride a bike, it’s been too long since I was last there
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
King Boonen said:
rick james said:
Mayomaniac said:
Koronin said:
7 million? I could retire on that.
Yeah, pretty much everyone could retire on that.
I couldn’t, I’d need double that just for the hookers and cocaine
In Scotland? Don’t lie.
Good cycle for you today, one of the best places in Scotland to ride a bike, it’s been too long since I was last there
First time I’ve ridden it actually, was great. Skipped the train and rode out to the ferry too, too dark for the return leg this time.
 
wrinklyvet said:
The regulations in the WADA code include the oft-quoted one about Salbutamol and other Beta-2 agonists and include the following:-

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.

In the first place, “unless” implies “until”. If it’s an AAF unless he proves otherwise, it’s also an AAF until he proves otherwise.

In the second place, salbutamol levels above the DL are automatically recorded as AAFs. By definition.

In the third place, Froome by all indications has already given up on trying to prove otherwise through a controlled pharmacokinetic study. At this point, he’s reduced to trying some other explanation, based on theory, not on lab results.

There is a rationalization in the rules for Froome’s being allowed to ride, but it is not because he doesn’t have an AAF.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
rick james said:
Mayomaniac said:
Koronin said:
7 million? I could retire on that.
Yeah, pretty much everyone could retire on that.
I couldn’t, I’d need double that just for the hookers and cocaine

You would need a lot of hookers and cocaine to forget the fact that you were wrong on froome, yet spent years trolling and insulting those who were right.

oh dear :D
Rick, you were wrong. I hope you can overcome this
stay strong
 
Re:

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

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.

In the first place, “unless” implies “until”. If it’s an AAF unless he proves otherwise, it’s also an AAF until he proves otherwise.

In the second place, salbutamol levels above the DL are automatically recorded as AAFs. By definition.

In the third place, Froome by all indications has already given up on trying to prove otherwise through a controlled pharmacokinetic study. At this point, he’s reduced to trying some other explanation, based on theory, not on lab results.

There is a rationalization in the rules for Froome’s being allowed to ride, but it is not because he doesn’t have an AAF.
The idea that "unless" implies "until" is certainly plausible and I don't disagree. I am not sure that there is any reliable indication of what his arguments are. They seem to have been invented for him and treated as if it's gospel.
 
Re: Re:

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

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.

In the first place, “unless” implies “until”. If it’s an AAF unless he proves otherwise, it’s also an AAF until he proves otherwise.

In the second place, salbutamol levels above the DL are automatically recorded as AAFs. By definition.

In the third place, Froome by all indications has already given up on trying to prove otherwise through a controlled pharmacokinetic study. At this point, he’s reduced to trying some other explanation, based on theory, not on lab results.

There is a rationalization in the rules for Froome’s being allowed to ride, but it is not because he doesn’t have an AAF.
The idea that "unless" implies "until" is certainly plausible and I don't disagree. I am not sure that there is any reliable indication of what his arguments are. They seem to have been invented for him and treated as if it's gospel.

To the punctuation point. ;)
 
miguelindurain111 said:
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:

Yeah ... I was doing my old best with the coughing and wheezing drama at the doc's office the other day. Wouldn't take the bait. WTF!
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Parker said:
There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.


of course they have, clinic says so

If you assume an hourly rate of, say, 500 euros an hour and an 8 hour working day thats 1750 man days in 6 months. If we assume 120 working days thats a team of about 14 working full time on it. That does seem pretty high but there could be sizeable disbursements for testing/research etc. Either way, it doesn't take too long to rack up huge legal fees when the stakes are pretty high and I've no doubt they've spent a lot!
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
rick james said:
Parker said:
There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.


of course they have, clinic says so
No, tuttobiciweb says so.
Tssk, bad woman, don't confuse ***, he's easily led.
 
Regardless of the total cost, it should not be surprising to anyone that Sky would pay towards his legal fees, especially once they went down road of not suspending him - it showed they were backing him completely. They still need that "never tested +ve" claim. It was only Walsh suggesting otherwise (which itself should be an indication that the opposite is true).

His defence fund isn't going to be just legal fees. They need to pay previously-respected experts from the scientific community to suspend logic and defend the indefensible - that can't be cheap. Who knows what other money they are paying out in order to try to keep the show on the road. PR companies aren't cheap and then there's Uncle Brian's retirement gift to consider
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
rick james said:
Parker said:
There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.


of course they have, clinic says so
No, tuttobiciweb says so.
Isn't tuttobiciweb saying La Stampa is saying?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
brownbobby said:
hazaran said:
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.
Was just thinking the same...7 million euros in little more than 5 months is hard to believe
I don't get it, either. Because :
- Most people had thought Brailsford was making Froome pay his own legal fees, and Sky would not cover it. Did they reconcile this?
- Defending Froome against getting banned for two years, at the cost of two years salary, would mean someone thinks Froome is 'worth' twice as much in the overall picture
- Risk of doubling-down on a losing gamble, also seemed in the interviews like Brailsford expects Froome to get some form of suspension.
"Caso salbutamolo (Froome): il costo delle consulenze già a 7 milioni di euro". Cifra enorme, che fa riflettere. A che punto siamo?.....Si sa che Sky e Froome, cui tocca l'onere della prova, alla fine dovranno rimborsare l'Uci di quello che ha speso. È la pipì più costosa nella storia del ciclismo (e della pipì).
"The Salbutamol Case (Froome): the cost of legal consultancy is already at 7 million euros. An enormous figure, which makes us wonder, what point are we at? It is known that Sky and Froome, which hold the burden of proof, will eventually have to repay the UCI for what it has spent. This is the most expensive pee in the history of cycling (and in the history of peeing)."

It's also not clear to me what part of the UCI's costs Froome will have to pay, it seemed like most of the Anti-Doping Tribunal defendants were getting billed for laboratory and court costs of about 10,000 - 20,000 Swiss francs, and some had to pay a fine of 70% of one year's income for cycling. The defendants didn't have to pay for the UCI's lawyers, as far as I know

7 million on legal fees in 6 months? Not plausible IMO. Even with Morgan and his juniors putting the hours in, and a team of experts turning over every rock, the Giro fee of 1.4 million is a more realistic estimate for that timescale

As for who's paying the Dawg's fees, Walsh wrote in the ST when the AAF story broke that Brailsfraud was making Froome pay his own way because the Dawg didn't have his back during the Wiggo's jiffybag saga. And that would be consistent with JTL being hung out to dry and made to pay his own legal fees clearly it's something that's written into the rider's contracts

However, could something have happened to make Brailsfraud change his mind and agree the team should pay the Dawg's fees? Well I guess Froome could have made him offer he couldn't refuse. Brailsfraud likes to hang tough until someone with enough leverage blackmails him then he caves. Whatever, Walsh has subsequently said that Brailsfraud and the Dawg are currently closer than they've ever been so maybe some kind of compromise has been reached with the team paying part of the fees. After all, Brailsfraud must know that if the Dawg goes down the team is kapput

Stepping back from the nitty gritty, a case like this with huge legal fees on both sides is really a big problem for the UCI which is not exactly rolling in cash. So, just like Morgan dragging the case out puts pressure on the UCI to cave or settle on unfavourable terms, Morgan and his team turning over every rock has the same effect. After all, the UCI's huge legal fees fighting Pelizotti's bio-passport appeal at CAS were a big reason why the UCI basically gave up on prosecuting bio-passport cases instead favouring the much cheaper chill your boots letter approach

And chances are the fees on both sides are currently only half of what they will be by the time the inevitable appeal to CAS has played out. I bet Mike Morgan goes somewhere nice on holiday this year. Pina coladas all round!
 
Re: Re:

simoni said:
rick james said:
Parker said:
There's no way they have spent 7 million on the legal defence. Adjusting for inflation, that's approximately what OJ Simpson spent on his murder trial. And that was a court case that went on for nearly a year.


of course they have, clinic says so

If you assume an hourly rate of, say, 500 euros an hour and an 8 hour working day thats 1750 man days in 6 months. If we assume 120 working days thats a team of about 14 working full time on it. That does seem pretty high but there could be sizeable disbursements for testing/research etc. Either way, it doesn't take too long to rack up huge legal fees when the stakes are pretty high and I've no doubt they've spent a lot!

Maybe GSK lawyers have thrown in some pro bono work? :surprised:
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts