Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1174 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
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:
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
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!

Where did Walsh say Froome and Brailsford are closer than ever ? Got a link ?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Wiggo's Package said:
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!

Where did Walsh say Froome and Brailsford are closer than ever ? Got a link ?
Sunday Times. Online behind a digital paywall. I'm old skool and go to the newsagents of a Sunday for the analogue version
 
Come to think about Froomes missing morale, in terms of racing during his investigation, it's now even more clear IMO, that he believe what he is doing is totally alright.

If you had a bit of morale and some respect for the fans, and cycling in general, you would probably not act this way.

No class at all.
 
Re:

danielovichdk2 said:
Come to think about Froomes missing morale, in terms of racing during his investigation, it's now even more clear IMO, that he believe what he is doing is totally alright.

If you had a bit of morale and some respect for the fans, and cycling in general, you would probably not act this way.

No class at all.
Looking at the way he raced up that hill yesterday, I'd say there's nowt wrong with his morale, he seems as high-spirited as he always does. More so, in fact, given he was climbing so fast despite his wheels having come off...still, maybe today he'll bottom out.
 
Jul 18, 2013
187
0
0
Re:

Koronin said:
7 million? I could retire on that.
Let's see...30yrs x 1 jar nutella/day x 3 serves vege juice/day x 3 ventilon inhalers/hr x Jiffy bag courier costs x marginal gains... yeah, it might just cover it.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Come to think about Froomes missing morale, in terms of racing during his investigation, it's now even more clear IMO, that he believe what he is doing is totally alright.

If you had a bit of morale and some respect for the fans, and cycling in general, you would probably not act this way.

No class at all.
Looking at the way he raced up that hill yesterday, I'd say there's nowt wrong with his morale, he seems as high-spirited as he always does. More so, in fact, given he was climbing so fast despite his wheels having come off...still, maybe today he'll bottom out.
Maybe something ... I dunno ... a little 'Brechtian" ... maybe. That might lull the haters into a bit of a breather? Ya reckon?
 
"I'm doing everything I can. I'm racing as hard as I can, and I'm not going to give up just because I came fourth today. I think there is a lot to race for,"
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-my-rivals-are-all-on-track-for-the-giro-ditalia/)


Has SDB told him not to provoke us during this delicate legal moment?
Has SDB told him not to juice until things have been resolved?

Either way this now appears to be a pantomime Dawg
A wonder to behold.

Do I dare disturb the universe? /TS Eliot.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
"I'm doing everything I can. I'm racing as hard as I can, and I'm not going to give up just because I came fourth today. I think there is a lot to race for,"
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-my-rivals-are-all-on-track-for-the-giro-ditalia/)


Has SDB told him not to provoke us during this delicate legal moment?
Has SDB told him not to juice until things have been resolved?

Either way this now appears to be a pantomime Dawg
A wonder to behold.


Do I dare disturb the universe? /TS Eliot.
did you watch last year Dauphine or the last few editions of Tour de Romandie? his form was similar to now
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
rick james said:
staubsauger said:
Wasn't it a bit too obvious he started the motor with about 4 kilometers to go!?
What a **** motor then, couldn’t even come top 3 with a motor spinning away


What’s the guys that come top 3 doing that Froome isn’t?


Answers on a postcard please
They’re training harder and have rounder wheels.
well its a start, glad they are catching on
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
staubsauger said:
Wasn't it a bit too obvious he started the motor with about 4 kilometers to go!?
What a **** motor then, couldn’t even come top 3 with a motor spinning away


What’s the guys that come top 3 doing that Froome isn’t?


Answers on a postcard please
good cyclist on juice > bad cyclist on juice with good motor......do the math :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY