Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1180 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
ferryman said:
Parker said:
Bolder said:
As for legal rights, I am certain that there is some sort of civil case to be made in an Italian court that he can prevent Froome from starting while the AAF is unresolved. Off the top of my head I could see some sort of future claim for damages against Sky if Froome wins or podiums, then is stripped of his result.
Could you point to any example where a race organiser has claimed damages from a rider who lost their results? (Something that is almost certainly not going to happen to Froome BTW)
Damages or losing the Vuelta? Really, why are you and others so supportive of this most obvious of dopers. I get the English angle (pun intended) but seriously, just why, other than pure misguided patriotism can you defend this fraud. If you actually believe in him and Sky, I feel sorry for you, if you are trolling on his behalf, I feel even more sorry for you.
Well ... I am partial to Basil Fawlty ... but nowt else in my passport to show me as British, English, UK-ish, Great Britain-ish. But ... aye ... I dooooo like me chances goin mano a mano on thee old Queen's English, lad.

So ... in all honesty ... that's not a factor for me and some others on here who are tarred with a fanboi feather. Very, very simple. Froome may be a big time doper. But I, like you, have NO WAY OF KNOWING that. So, my approach ... is to let the process run its course, respect the UCI's/WADA's process, respect the rider's rights. (Don't start on the "Italian Public" or "French Public" ... races in disrepute thang. We've all had a smorgasbord of BS on this and can't stomach another bite.) If the relevant authorities sanction him ... there will me no blip on my fanboi radar. Nada. If he walks ... continues to race, continues to win ... fine, as well. I'd love to see TD take him out ... but the half life of race favorite loss disappointment is ... like ... about three minutes for me. So there you have it ... my profile ... my reason for being a Froome defender ... a Froome fanboi ... a Sky lapdog. Now ... tell me. What's wrong with that ...?
you have no way of knowing????

what do you think actually happened in late summer 2011?

It's reminiscent of the judas priest fans who didn't know rob was gay....... :D
 
I have watched this debate over the months with interest. It's now fashionable to declare where one stands nationally. I am English and therefore British. Froome is British but not English. I never liked him very much and he may "go down" as they say, but let's be fair.

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

"Except:

Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours;
in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose;
Inhaled formoterol: maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours;
Inhaled salmeterol: maximum 200 micrograms over 24 hours.

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.

To me that justifies the fact that he is permitted to ride until the case is resolved and thereafter it depends on how it turns out.

At the end of the day it's a job of work. Every professional athlete depends on sport for his/her income and it's not for us to say that should be suspended in this case.

I thought I would come out of commenting semi-retirement to offer this argued position.
 
70kmph said:
Vegni himself:
«Non ho la possibilità di escludere Froome dal prossimo Giro. Se cercassi di farlo, rischierei un’eventuale azione legale della Sky perché non ci sono gli estremi normativi per chiudere la porta in faccia a un corridore che fino a prova contraria non è risultato positivo al doping».
Which is something like
"I don't have the possibility to exclude Froome from the Giro. If I tried to do it, I'd risk a possible legal action by Sky because there are no rules to stop a rider entering who, until proven otherwise, wasn't positive for doping."
Someone with a better grasp of Italian can tidy that up...but the gist seems pretty clear...
 
70kmph said:
Giorgio Viberti of La Stampa contradicts the established notion that CF is paying
Morgan (not Sky) by writing:
Sky, che nel frattempo ha già speso in avvocati e perizie legali oltre 7 milioni di euro.
which translates to:
Sky, who in the meantime have already spent over 7 million euros in lawyers and legal reports.
No mention of Sky paying back in December:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-hires-former-bruyneel-and-contador-lawyer-for-salbutamol-case/
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
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.
 
Re:

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
 
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:

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
 
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS