Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

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

bigcog said:
Parker said:
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.
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.
I can't see any grounds for backdating.
Do we know why Petacchi and Ulissi had theirs backdated ?
Petacchi was originally cleared, it went to appeal.

Ulissi self-suspended.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
bigcog said:
Parker said:
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.
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.
I can't see any grounds for backdating.
Do we know why Petacchi and Ulissi had theirs backdated ?
Petacchi was originally cleared, it went to appeal.

Ulissi self-suspended.
Thanks, ok looks like you are right.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
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 ?
It may be still 2 for specifically salbuamol. However, in the past 2 was the full ban for anything. Now for most things it's 4. Which is why I wouldn't be shocked, esp with this case going to the full tribal if he is handed a back dated 2 year ban. Also a late May/early June decision would seem to be a fairly safe idea of when that decision could be handed down.
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
I'm thinking (and hoping) it'll be two years, not backdated, though that Vuelta is toast. But it *would* be delicious if it were announced two days before the Giro's final stage.
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
GraftPunk said:
I'm thinking (and hoping) it'll be two years, not backdated, though that Vuelta is toast. But it *would* be delicious if it were announced two days before the Giro's final stage.
Oh that would be vicious.
It would break the forums that's for sure.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I agree with Parker, 6 to 12 months not backdated. Probably 6 months starting in early August so he can return to competition in February :rolleyes:
Seems he and RCS have already gotten confirmation he won't get a backdated ban.
Well if that happens that would be ridiculous, because he will most likely close his season after Giro-Tour. :eek: (maybe he will target the WCRR, but I doubt it, he was bad in 2013 WCRR and 2016 OGRR)
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Seems he and RCS have already gotten confirmation he won't get a backdated ban.
Link? I've seen no reports of this. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, for a rider to be promised anything ahead of a decision by the Tribunal.

As for the length of the ban, Ulissi and Petacchi got at least nine months, and nothing we know of Froome's case suggests that he should be treated any more leniently.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
LaFlorecita said:
Seems he and RCS have already gotten confirmation he won't get a backdated ban.
Link? I've seen no reports of this. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, for a rider to be promised anything ahead of a decision by the Tribunal.

As for the length of the ban, Ulissi and Petacchi got at least nine months, and nothing we know of Froome's case suggests that he should be treated any more leniently.
Of course there has been no actual confirmation that they've been assured there'll be no backdated ban. It is just my impression because both parties seem so certain it'll not be backdated.
 
pastronef said:
https://www.indeleiderstrui.nl/nieuws/giro-ditalia/166307/contador-het-is-normaal-dat-froome-meedoet-aan-de-giro

Contador points to UCI rules: 'It is normal for Froome to take part in the Giro'
Well obviously, as long as he isn't (provisionally) banned, he's free to race according to the rules. However, I think many people feel he should have been banned provisionally when the case was moved along to the tribunal.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
FWIW...

Froome's case will be resolved after the Giro but ahead of the TdF and he will get a 2 year ban which won't be backdated (so he loses the 2017 Vuelta but not the 2017 Worlds bronze or his 2018 Giro result)

Froome will inevitably appeal and CAS will reduce the ban to 1 year because Morgan will persuade Froome to move away from his *** or bust no fault defence once he's been banned instead at CAS accidental over-ingestion will be the line taken

Brailsfraud will sack Froome it's getting crowded under that bus but always room for one more. The calls for the Murdochs to sack Brailsfraud and ditch Team Sky will be deafening but will be ignored time to dig out the Rebekah Wade damage limitation playbook
 
But as a rule, bans start the time of the test in normal situations. (where a provisional suspension starts when the AAF is communicated)

Salbutamol positives don't require a provisional suspension, so pretty much all bets are off.

(I go with 9 months, from date of judgement plus loss of Vuelta)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY