Because under WADA rules he's been free to race.Red Rick said:Why the hell would Froome get a proactive ban without getting his results stripped?
Red Rick said:Why the hell would Froome get a proactive ban without getting his results stripped?
hrotha said: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.
Benotti69 said:hrotha said: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.
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.
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:hrotha said: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.
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: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:hrotha said: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.
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.
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.
+1Benotti69 said:hrotha said: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:hrotha said: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.
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.
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.
The sport and the testing is such a joke that Froome and Menchov may have tested positive lots of times in races but we dont know.
I would ban dopers for life.
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:I think many would be happy if he gets 9-12 months from June '18 and loses all results from the positive to the announcement of the ban. Then he could come back next year and target either Tour or Vuelta.
topcat said:We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
topcat said:We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.Koronin said:topcat said:We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
This seems the most likely outcome at this point.
Parker said:Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.Koronin said:topcat said:We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
This seems the most likely outcome at this point.
First of all, I don't think deals are put on the table.Koronin said:Parker said:Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.Koronin said:topcat said:We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
This seems the most likely outcome at this point.
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.
Koronin said:Parker said:Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.Koronin said:topcat said:We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
This seems the most likely outcome at this point.
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.
If Froome has a stinker at the Giro and then his lawyer gets him a backdated ban, he'll be up for lawyer of the year awards.bigcog said:Assuming he doesn't get off like Piepoli then similar to Petacchi and Ulissi I would have thought, backdated 9-12 months ban.
Parker said:If Froome has a stinker at the Giro and then his lawyer gets him a backdated ban, he'll be up for lawyer of the year awards.bigcog said:Assuming he doesn't get off like Piepoli then similar to Petacchi and Ulissi I would have thought, backdated 9-12 months ban.
I can't see any grounds for backdating.