-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re:
Cant see Froome really trying too hard to win Il Giro if it is going to be stripped off him a few days/weeks later before the TDF.
So UCI have either told Froome he will keep his wins and get a ban from date of hearing or he will be banned from Vuelta date.
Menchov got to heep his GT wins.
UCI still a joke so anything is possible.
Red Rick said:
Cant see Froome really trying too hard to win Il Giro if it is going to be stripped off him a few days/weeks later before the TDF.
So UCI have either told Froome he will keep his wins and get a ban from date of hearing or he will be banned from Vuelta date.
Menchov got to heep his GT wins.
UCI still a joke so anything is possible.
- Jun 10, 2010
- 19,785
- 2,019
- 25,680
Menchov's case was completely different.
I don't know what'll happen. I think it will be a shame if Froome isn't actually suspended from racing, but I don't want him to keep any results he gets while riding before the decision either, because I think he shouldn't be allowed to race in the first place. But I can't have my cake and eat it too. This conundrum is unsolvable - the whole process should be like 10x faster and that'd be the only fair possibility, but it's easier said than done.
I don't know what'll happen. I think it will be a shame if Froome isn't actually suspended from racing, but I don't want him to keep any results he gets while riding before the decision either, because I think he shouldn't be allowed to race in the first place. But I can't have my cake and eat it too. This conundrum is unsolvable - the whole process should be like 10x faster and that'd be the only fair possibility, but it's easier said than done.
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re:
Froome doped. Menchoc doped. Why complicate it?
This is very solvable. You stop competing the minute it is found your have an AAF. Until you can prove it is not doping, you dont get to race that is if you dont accept the ban. Anything less is a failure of sport to treat doping seriously, which we see time and time again.
hrotha said:
Froome doped. Menchoc doped. Why complicate it?
This is very solvable. You stop competing the minute it is found your have an AAF. Until you can prove it is not doping, you dont get to race that is if you dont accept the ban. Anything less is a failure of sport to treat doping seriously, which we see time and time again.
- Apr 3, 2009
- 11,761
- 6,769
- 28,180
Re: Re:
Seems pretty good to me. I’m guessing we’d see resolution happen a skosh more quickly if this were the rule.
Benotti69 said:
Seems pretty good to me. I’m guessing we’d see resolution happen a skosh more quickly if this were the rule.
- Jun 10, 2010
- 19,785
- 2,019
- 25,680
Re: Re:
As for your proposal, I don't have a problem with it in principle, but then does the precautionary suspension count towards the total time served? If it doesn't, you're left with people serving sentences that are twice as long as intended, and it's unfair because not all processes take equally long.
Why complicate it? Because them's the rules. Of course testing positive in a race (Froome) is very different from not testing positive in a race (Menchov).Benotti69 said:
As for your proposal, I don't have a problem with it in principle, but then does the precautionary suspension count towards the total time served? If it doesn't, you're left with people serving sentences that are twice as long as intended, and it's unfair because not all processes take equally long.
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Just to summarize discussion we’ve already had (because it's complicated, and easy to forget details):
WADA Code 10.8 says that all results beginning with the positive test are disqualified, “unless fairness requires otherwise”. Rule 10.11 says any suspension begins on the date the decision is announced, unless there have been delays in the procedure not caused by the defendant.
Considering 10.11 first, this exception likely would not apply assuming Froome’s case is settled before the TDF. Even if it were settled later, it would not apply unless Froome could show that the delay was not his doing, which seems to me unlikely. This rule strikes me as a little odd, though, because if Froome intentionally delayed the case, the rule indicates there would be no retroactive ban, which would work in his favor. As has been pointed out before, if Froome could delay a decision till after the TDF, and get a proactive ban, he would keep all his GT results. There doesn't seem to be a clear rule discouraging this, though I think the judge does have discretion to impose both a retroactive disqualification as well as a proactive ban. At the least, he can put an end to submission of documents and move right to the hearing, or even skip the hearing.
Turning to 10.8, what “fairness” entails is somewhat ambiguous. A very relevant legal analysis of the terms was posted here a while back, though:
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf
The article identified four factors that could be taken into account in assessing fairness:
1. Delays in the results management process – This is basically what I just pointed out for Rule 10.11. It’s unlikely to apply.
2. The athlete’s degree of fault – This might help Froome if he could establish no significant fault, but based on what we’ve heard—that LADS rejected Froome’s explanation, and the Froome has refused to admit to an accidental ingestion of too much salbutamol—I think it will also be unlikely to apply.
3. Effect on other sporting results – If the athlete can establish that his positive did not affect the results of any events he subsequently participated in, the fairness principle would allow him to keep those results. This seems to be the strongest point in Froome’s favor. Since his positive, he has completed three stage races totaling I think seventeen racing days, plus the Worlds TTT and ITT which were right about the time he learned of the positive. Though he didn’t win or lead in any of these races, I assume that he was probably tested at some point during this period, either in or out of competition (would he have been tested following the bronze medals at the Worlds?). In any case, since he clearly didn’t test positive again (unless it was another salbutamol overdose which he’s covering up!!), he would satisfy this criterion. Just the fact that he was allowed to race during this period would probably work in his favor as well.
4. Significant effects of disqualification – If as a result of disqualification the athlete would suffer significant negative financial or competitive effects, the fairness principle may allow him to keep the results. This seems rather strange to me, as the whole point of doping penalties is to discourage cheating by the threat of loss of results and money. But I think this is mostly meant to apply to long delays before the decision is announced. Anyway, on the face of it, Froome with his $2 million Giro payoff might make this argument.
So Froome might qualify under the fairness clause not to have any results retroactively disqualified (except the Vuelta, of course, which would be lost under any scenario in which there was a ban of any length). However, it’s up to the individual judge how he interprets the situation, and the article also emphasizes that it isn’t necessarily a matter of finding one clause that supports a particular decision, but considering all the relevant factors.
WADA Code 10.8 says that all results beginning with the positive test are disqualified, “unless fairness requires otherwise”. Rule 10.11 says any suspension begins on the date the decision is announced, unless there have been delays in the procedure not caused by the defendant.
Considering 10.11 first, this exception likely would not apply assuming Froome’s case is settled before the TDF. Even if it were settled later, it would not apply unless Froome could show that the delay was not his doing, which seems to me unlikely. This rule strikes me as a little odd, though, because if Froome intentionally delayed the case, the rule indicates there would be no retroactive ban, which would work in his favor. As has been pointed out before, if Froome could delay a decision till after the TDF, and get a proactive ban, he would keep all his GT results. There doesn't seem to be a clear rule discouraging this, though I think the judge does have discretion to impose both a retroactive disqualification as well as a proactive ban. At the least, he can put an end to submission of documents and move right to the hearing, or even skip the hearing.
Turning to 10.8, what “fairness” entails is somewhat ambiguous. A very relevant legal analysis of the terms was posted here a while back, though:
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin_2017_2.pdf
The article identified four factors that could be taken into account in assessing fairness:
1. Delays in the results management process – This is basically what I just pointed out for Rule 10.11. It’s unlikely to apply.
2. The athlete’s degree of fault – This might help Froome if he could establish no significant fault, but based on what we’ve heard—that LADS rejected Froome’s explanation, and the Froome has refused to admit to an accidental ingestion of too much salbutamol—I think it will also be unlikely to apply.
3. Effect on other sporting results – If the athlete can establish that his positive did not affect the results of any events he subsequently participated in, the fairness principle would allow him to keep those results. This seems to be the strongest point in Froome’s favor. Since his positive, he has completed three stage races totaling I think seventeen racing days, plus the Worlds TTT and ITT which were right about the time he learned of the positive. Though he didn’t win or lead in any of these races, I assume that he was probably tested at some point during this period, either in or out of competition (would he have been tested following the bronze medals at the Worlds?). In any case, since he clearly didn’t test positive again (unless it was another salbutamol overdose which he’s covering up!!), he would satisfy this criterion. Just the fact that he was allowed to race during this period would probably work in his favor as well.
4. Significant effects of disqualification – If as a result of disqualification the athlete would suffer significant negative financial or competitive effects, the fairness principle may allow him to keep the results. This seems rather strange to me, as the whole point of doping penalties is to discourage cheating by the threat of loss of results and money. But I think this is mostly meant to apply to long delays before the decision is announced. Anyway, on the face of it, Froome with his $2 million Giro payoff might make this argument.
So Froome might qualify under the fairness clause not to have any results retroactively disqualified (except the Vuelta, of course, which would be lost under any scenario in which there was a ban of any length). However, it’s up to the individual judge how he interprets the situation, and the article also emphasizes that it isn’t necessarily a matter of finding one clause that supports a particular decision, but considering all the relevant factors.
Re:
Would you be unhappy if he kept the results since the Vuelta? Because that is what will happen (assuming a ban). The only way he'll lose them if the ban is backdated, in which case he could be eligible to ride this year's Tour (but this also won't happen)Netserk said:
Re:
The royal we? Nobody gets 2 years for salbumatol. Hell, any other sport, you can get a commendation.
topcat said:
The royal we? Nobody gets 2 years for salbumatol. Hell, any other sport, you can get a commendation.
- Oct 14, 2017
- 12,196
- 3,228
- 23,180
Re: Re:
That one is possible with the stripping of la Vuelta title. I think the 6-12 is what was on the table for a deal that was refused. Remember also that the bans for doping are lengthier now than they were when the others were given the 9-12 month bans. At that time the full ban was 2 years. Now the full ban is 4 years. Also those riders took deals and never went through the full system. IMO, they must strip the Vuelta title if he's given any sort of ban at all.
Parker said:
That one is possible with the stripping of la Vuelta title. I think the 6-12 is what was on the table for a deal that was refused. Remember also that the bans for doping are lengthier now than they were when the others were given the 9-12 month bans. At that time the full ban was 2 years. Now the full ban is 4 years. Also those riders took deals and never went through the full system. IMO, they must strip the Vuelta title if he's given any sort of ban at all.
Re: Re:
And just because the maximum penalty was double it doesn't follow that all other bans will be doubled. The last two riders got nine months for this. Expect similar.
And no-one will dispute that he'll lose the Vuelta (unless cleared)
First of all, I don't think deals are put on the table.Koronin said:
And just because the maximum penalty was double it doesn't follow that all other bans will be doubled. The last two riders got nine months for this. Expect similar.
And no-one will dispute that he'll lose the Vuelta (unless cleared)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
Ronde van Vlaanderen 2025, one day monument, April 6 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 2K
-
Itzulia Basque Country 2025, April 7th-12th- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2025, March 24-30- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 109
Latest posts
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)
- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram