Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1176 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Merckx index said:
For just that reason, the least controversial ban would be a retroactive one, say nine months, that ended in June. It would mean any results would be stripped, and since Froome very likely will at least podium if not win the Giro, Vegni and co. would not be happy. But at least Froome would lose the results, and there would be no talk of how the timing of the decision favored him.
That would be the most controversial. Not only would the results be stripped but Froome wouldn't actually miss any racing.

The only result he'll lose is the Vuelta and there will be no backdating. And while older cases like Cardoso and Sanchez remain unresolved, I don't you can say delays have been unusual.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
Wiggo's Package said:
"Meanwhile, sources in Italy have indicated the Giro organisers do not feel it is likely that a ruling will be made on the Froome case while the race is actually in progress."
Great news, WP; thanks for that.

Vegni must be breathing a sigh of relief. He knows on which side his bread is buttered. He doesn't want to bring his race into disrepute with some mid race fiasco.

Ride on!
...every day our hapless hero rides is a fiasco
No worries, mate; you'll get used it.
at least the new fiascos are better than previous.....ungainly 200rpm seated attacks easily countered are how I'd like to remember him :)
Was there ever an RPM quoted? I've hit 170-odd on my fixed wheel going down hill and that's mental enough.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

Red Rick said:
Why the hell would Froome get a proactive ban without getting his results stripped?
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.
 
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.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

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.
 
Re: Re:

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.
Seems pretty good to me. I’m guessing we’d see resolution happen a skosh more quickly if this were the rule.
 
Re: Re:

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).

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.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
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).

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.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
hrotha said:
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).

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.
+1
 
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.
 
Re:

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.
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)
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Re:

topcat said:
We expect CF to get two years backdated. He might be eligible to ride TDF 2019 with no prep races
The royal we? Nobody gets 2 years for salbumatol. Hell, any other sport, you can get a commendation.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
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.
Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.
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:

Koronin said:
Parker said:
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.
Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.
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.
First of all, I don't think deals are put on the table.

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)
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Parker said:
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.
Really? I think 6-12 months not backdated is most likely.
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.
Is it 4 years for full ban for any substance now then, thought it was still 2 years for salbutamol ?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY