Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1194 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
when the UCI is "unsure" of when the Magic Kenyan's case is going to be solved before the Tour, I'm inclined to believe ASO and SKY are calling the shots on his case by delaying & dragging it to the longest time resolution, so the final verdict falls at the mercy of the lawyers & money instead of the standard sporting procedures......

at this point, I forecast a 6 month ban with his Vuelta title stripped, at the most.......

the least? he walks away with impunity.... ala Armstrong
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
red_flanders said:
MartinGT said:
Ever since the AAF was made public I have never been confident justice will be done.
Personally I have a slightly opposite reaction, that there might be hope that something would be done now that the abuse has been made public. I strongly suspect this isn't the first time it happened and that's the reason for the leak. I mean, I'm not expecting "justice" but transparency does seem to disinfect, as much as is possible with the UCI.
If anything I sense it’s gone even more underground with Froome refusing to talk about it and the likelyhood that we’ll never see the reasoned decision not matter what ban or no ban he receives.
Don't see how it's more underground now than it would have been had the public never heard about it, which is where we'd be if it hadn't been leaked.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
If anything I sense it’s gone even more underground with Froome refusing to talk about it and the likelyhood that we’ll never see the reasoned decision not matter what ban or no ban he receives.
If he receives any kind of sanction, the case has to be published. If Froome should get off, he could choose not to have the details published, but he might think twice before deciding to keep everything under wraps. If he did, I think the uproar would be even worse than what he's endured by refusing to suspend himself while the case is unresolved. After all that's emerged to date--his very high urine level, the many months he's had to explain it and hasn't been able to--an awful lot of people would flat-out assume that the case had been rigged. I think everyone in cycling who has been calling for Froome not to race would start calling for him to release the details of the decision. At that point, Froome might feel he had nothing to lose by doing that. After all, he's been insisting all along he's broken no rules. Why would he not want to reveal the evidence that proves that?

But why is the case taking so long? What exactly are they doing right now? Just submitting more documents? Haas has the power to say enough, and either set a hearing date, or dispense with the hearing and just issue his decision. IMO, he's not helping his own reputation by not doing this. After more than eight months, the last three of which seem to have been before the Tribunal, the argument that the case can't be rushed is sounding more and more hollow to me.

Edit: Whoa! Hadn't seen this at CN. Froome says he wants the case resolved before the Tour:

"I want this resolved more than anyone else does, to be honest. I'd love this to be sorted out before the Tour de France, so that question isn't there anymore. Obviously, there's a process in place, and we're following that process."
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
thehog said:
If anything I sense it’s gone even more underground with Froome refusing to talk about it and the likelyhood that we’ll never see the reasoned decision not matter what ban or no ban he receives.
If he receives any kind of sanction, the case has to be published. If Froome should get off, he could choose not to have the details published, but he might think twice before deciding to keep everything under wraps. If he did, I think the uproar would be even worse than what he's endured by refusing to suspend himself while the case is unresolved. After all that's emerged to date--his very high urine level, the many months he's had to explain it and hasn't been able to--an awful lot of people would flat-out assume that the case had been rigged. I think everyone in cycling who has been calling for Froome not to race would start calling for him to release the details of the decision. At that point, Froome might feel he had nothing to lose by doing that. After all, he's been insisting all along he's broken no rules. Why would he not want to reveal the evidence that proves that?

But why is the case taking so long? What exactly are they doing right now? Just submitting more documents? Haas has the power to say enough, and either set a hearing date, or dispense with the hearing and just issue his decision. IMO, he's not helping his own reputation by not doing this. After more than eight months, the last three of which seem to have been before the Tribunal, the argument that the case can't be rushed is sounding more and more hollow to me.

Except remember, Contador's case took about a year. There were two bans given out earlier this year that for positive anti-doping tests from 2016. Also remember that Valverde's case (from the time the Italian anti doping people matched his DNA to an Operation Puerto blood bag) took about 2 years. So it taking about a year seems to be fairly normal for any case.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
MartinGT said:
hazaran said:
UCI losers said:
Lappartient unsure if Chris Froome case will be resolved before Tour de France
UCI President says that four-time champion will be able to race
MartinGT said:
He's gonna get off aint he LOL
I love this quote :lol:
Ever since the AAF was made public I have never been confident justice will be done.
Sky and Froome are to big to fail. Just like Armstrong......
I don't think Froome is too big (he never was very marketable, unlike Cancer Jesus from the USA), but Sky definitely is still too big to punish. Just look at how the Moscon case dragged on. In no other workplace could one person accuse a co-worker of deliberately causing physical injury and endangering his life - on the job - and it take 6 or so months just to interview all the witnesses. Investigate and clear him; investigate and punish him; investigate and announce that there's not enough evidence to be sure enough, so you couldn't take decisive action. But don't drag your heels on even doing the interviews. The investigation gets done quickly anywhere else.

Sky has been able to call the shots. DiData has been able to call the shots. Some teams are more equal than others.

Now. Froome's within his rights to fight this. Sky are within the rules not to suspend him pending an outcome. The rules are written with enough wiggle room to allow the system to be gamed. Done by design, probably to manage the situations of the big stars.

The UCI comes out of this looking terrible.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Except remember, Contador's case took about a year.
The initial decision by the Spanish federation took about six months. It was about a year from then to the CAS decision, but it took a couple of months for the appeal process, and more important, Contador was finished riding that year after the Tour, a few months after the appeal to CAS, so at that point there was no need to hurry. Most of the time between the Spanish decision and the CAS decision came during the off-season. If Froome were not racing, and wouldn't be for several more months, no one would be particularly concerned about delays.

So it taking about a year seems to be fairly normal for any case.
In almost all cases that go on that long, the rider is suspended, so again, there is no need to come to a quick decision. And why do these cases take so long? Because the rider has no valid explanation, and is, to put it bluntly, trying to convince through some BS excuse.

In fact, as Froome never tires of pointing out, we've never heard about the salbutamol cases where the rider didn't suspend himself and was eventually cleared, so we have no idea how long they took to be resolved. All we know about are the cases where the rider was suspended.

But let me post this again, in case someone missed it because I edited my post above:

"I want this resolved more than anyone else does, to be honest. I'd love this to be sorted out before the Tour de France, so that question isn't there anymore. Obviously, there's a process in place, and we're following that process."
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Koronin said:
Except remember, Contador's case took about a year.
The initial decision by the Spanish federation took about six months. It was about a year from then to the CAS decision, but it took a couple of months for the appeal process, and more important, Contador was finished riding that year after the Tour, a few months after the appeal to CAS, so at that point there was no need to hurry. Most of the time between the Spanish decision and the CAS decision came during the off-season. If Froome were not racing, and wouldn't be for several more months, no one would be particularly concerned about delays.

So it taking about a year seems to be fairly normal for any case.
In almost all cases that go on that long, the rider is suspended, so again, there is no need to come to a quick decision. And why do these cases take so long? Because the rider has no valid explanation, and is, to put it bluntly, trying to convince through some BS excuse.

In fact, as Froome never tires of pointing out, we've never heard about the salbutamol cases where the rider didn't suspend himself and was eventually cleared, so we have no idea how long they took to be resolved. All we know about are the cases where the rider was suspended.

But let me post this again, in case someone missed it because I edited my post above:

"I want this resolved more than anyone else does, to be honest. I'd love this to be sorted out before the Tour de France, so that question isn't there anymore. Obviously, there's a process in place, and we're following that process."

True we don't know about a lot of cases as many aren't as public as Froome's, Contador's, Valverde's and some others. Yes a lot of riders are suspended during the proceedings, although not all.
 
Re: Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Benotti69 said:
MartinGT said:
hazaran said:
UCI losers said:
Lappartient unsure if Chris Froome case will be resolved before Tour de France
UCI President says that four-time champion will be able to race
MartinGT said:
He's gonna get off aint he LOL
I love this quote :lol:
Ever since the AAF was made public I have never been confident justice will be done.
Sky and Froome are to big to fail. Just like Armstrong......
I don't think Froome is too big (he never was very marketable, unlike Cancer Jesus from the USA), but Sky definitely is still too big to punish. Just look at how the Moscon case dragged on. In no other workplace could one person accuse a co-worker of deliberately causing physical injury and endangering his life - on the job - and it take 6 or so months just to interview all the witnesses. Investigate and clear him; investigate and punish him; investigate and announce that there's not enough evidence to be sure enough, so you couldn't take decisive action. But don't drag your heels on even doing the interviews. The investigation gets done quickly anywhere else.

Sky has been able to call the shots. DiData has been able to call the shots. Some teams are more equal than others.

Now. Froome's within his rights to fight this. Sky are within the rules not to suspend him pending an outcome. The rules are written with enough wiggle room to allow the system to be gamed. Done by design, probably to manage the situations of the big stars.

The UCI comes out of this looking terrible.
Fully agree. Sky are fine, they have many riders to take Froome’s spot with a good chance of a Top 5. Froome is nowhere near Armstrong in terms of popularity.
 
Meh, I think right now the hullabaloo is all about pressure and mind games. Froome's team has been dragging this out and they're being called on it, as in "the case might not be resolved before the Tdf" and the Tour itself might ban his participation. Well, Froome is not gonna perform as well with this hanging over his head, or not perform at all if ASO restricts him from racing, so ball's in his court.
 
Froome to receive complete exoneration in the Sal case. UCI to pay Froome's court costs, plus reimburse the Dawg for emotional harm and deprivation of the mechanized TUE/motor, which will be reinstalled on his bike for the TDF. Also, a special ruling granted to award co-championship Giro trophy and GC prize to Froome to offset lost opportunity from the proceedings. ASO to kick in $5 million for lifetime supply of Salbutamol for Froome. Also, Froome to receive sponsorship deal with Salbutamol manufacturers and with the electric bike motor company. :D
 
Aug 14, 2010
128
0
8,680
Don't think this was discussed, but it's worth mentioning.

David Lappartient:

On the other hand for the Tour de France, they have specific regulations with the potential way to declare that the rider will not be allowed to take part – but this is not under the UCI rules, this is a specific regulation of the event and image of the race.
He seems to be saying that if Froome's case isn't resolved before the Tour, ASO will use its rules to stop him. We all know it is possible in theory but this is the first time, I think, a threat (you can call it a hint) comes from the UCI. As in, our hands are tied, we can't do anything, but these guys can.

Of course, he has to also play it smooth so he adds:

This is not what we want and it's not what the organiser wants. For me, this is better when the institution takes the decision and our jurisdiction bodies take the decision and we don't want the organiser to take the decision.
So it's like, we don't really want to do it this way, but... it's an option.
 
Froome's protesting that he wants this resolved quickly is a bit hard to swallow. If there was a simple, airtight explanation, it would have been offered 6 months ago. It's pretty clear that the CAS -- if it gets to them -- will be presented with a 10-inch thick dossier of charts, graphs and irrelvant but convincing looking studies, with a corresponding PowerPoint presentation.

I am pretty sure ASO is tied in knots right now, however. They'd love to ban CF but OTOH would like the publicity that will come from him riding with an unresolved case. They've only got a few weeks to make a call, too.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Edit: Whoa! Hadn't seen this at CN. Froome says he wants the case resolved before the Tour:

"I want this resolved more than anyone else does, to be honest. I'd love this to be sorted out before the Tour de France, so that question isn't there anymore. Obviously, there's a process in place, and we're following that process."
First, let me say I appreciate your reasoned and articulate posting.

With regards to the Froome quote, is it possible you are placing the wrong construction on Froome's words?

You may be tending towards a construction which infers, "I want this over as soon as possible [and I am doing everything I can to achieve that]. No if or buts."

Froome's real meaning may well be, "I would love this to go away now. [But the number one thing is the best outcome for me which may well mean dragging the tribunal out till the end of my 2018 season.]"

Both meanings are entirely possible and therefore it is important not to read too much into Froome's quotes, which tend to be rather bland, generic and short on hard facts and opinions and are thus open to various interpretations. They are rather like the chairman's statement in a company report.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Merckx index said:
thehog said:
If anything I sense it’s gone even more underground with Froome refusing to talk about it and the likelyhood that we’ll never see the reasoned decision not matter what ban or no ban he receives.
If he receives any kind of sanction, the case has to be published. If Froome should get off, he could choose not to have the details published, but he might think twice before deciding to keep everything under wraps. If he did, I think the uproar would be even worse than what he's endured by refusing to suspend himself while the case is unresolved. After all that's emerged to date--his very high urine level, the many months he's had to explain it and hasn't been able to--an awful lot of people would flat-out assume that the case had been rigged. I think everyone in cycling who has been calling for Froome not to race would start calling for him to release the details of the decision. At that point, Froome might feel he had nothing to lose by doing that. After all, he's been insisting all along he's broken no rules. Why would he not want to reveal the evidence that proves that?

But why is the case taking so long? What exactly are they doing right now? Just submitting more documents? Haas has the power to say enough, and either set a hearing date, or dispense with the hearing and just issue his decision. IMO, he's not helping his own reputation by not doing this. After more than eight months, the last three of which seem to have been before the Tribunal, the argument that the case can't be rushed is sounding more and more hollow to me.

Except remember, Contador's case took about a year. There were two bans given out earlier this year that for positive anti-doping tests from 2016. Also remember that Valverde's case (from the time the Italian anti doping people matched his DNA to an Operation Puerto blood bag) took about 2 years. So it taking about a year seems to be fairly normal for any case.
Normal except that the process being used here was implemented by Cookson in order to speed things up...
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
MartinGT said:
hazaran said:
UCI losers said:
Lappartient unsure if Chris Froome case will be resolved before Tour de France
UCI President says that four-time champion will be able to race
MartinGT said:
He's gonna get off aint he LOL
I love this quote :lol:
Ever since the AAF was made public I have never been confident justice will be done.
Sky and Froome are to big to fail. Just like Armstrong......
Too big for the UCI to fail but not too big for ASO to stop Froome?
 
Re:

Ripper said:
Meh, I think right now the hullabaloo is all about pressure and mind games. Froome's team has been dragging this out and they're being called on it, as in "the case might not be resolved before the Tdf" and the Tour itself might ban his participation. Well, Froome is not gonna perform as well with this hanging over his head, or not perform at all if ASO restricts him from racing, so ball's in his court.
But who believes ASO can restrict him from racing?

They can whip up a mob and endanger him on the roads of France and hope the fear of that danger is enough to keep him at home. But this is Sky. They may have that 2020 vision thing to be the most loved team in the history of the ever ever but they still thrive on being hated.
 
Re: Re:

Beech Mtn said:
I don't think Froome is too big (he never was very marketable, unlike Cancer Jesus from the USA), but Sky definitely is still too big to punish.
Failing Froome is failing Sky, and if Sky are to big to fail it follows that Froome is too big too. ASO - and the UCI - are heavily invested in the UK at the moment (the Tour de Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Worlds), now is not a politic time to be bashing the British. All they can do is let the rules play out whichever way they will.
 
Re:

fasthill said:
Don't think this was discussed, but it's worth mentioning.

David Lappartient:

On the other hand for the Tour de France, they have specific regulations with the potential way to declare that the rider will not be allowed to take part – but this is not under the UCI rules, this is a specific regulation of the event and image of the race.
He seems to be saying that if Froome's case isn't resolved before the Tour, ASO will use its rules to stop him. We all know it is possible in theory but this is the first time, I think, a threat (you can call it a hint) comes from the UCI. As in, our hands are tied, we can't do anything, but these guys can.

Of course, he has to also play it smooth so he adds:

This is not what we want and it's not what the organiser wants. For me, this is better when the institution takes the decision and our jurisdiction bodies take the decision and we don't want the organiser to take the decision.
So it's like, we don't really want to do it this way, but... it's an option.
Hands up who actually believes that the disrepute clause - in any version - is capable of stopping Froome from participating in the Tour.
 
Re:

Bolder said:
Froome's protesting that he wants this resolved quickly is a bit hard to swallow. If there was a simple, airtight explanation, it would have been offered 6 months ago. It's pretty clear that the CAS -- if it gets to them -- will be presented with a 10-inch thick dossier of charts, graphs and irrelvant but convincing looking studies, with a corresponding PowerPoint presentation.

I am pretty sure ASO is tied in knots right now, however. They'd love to ban CF but OTOH would like the publicity that will come from him riding with an unresolved case. They've only got a few weeks to make a call, too.
I find it hard to believe that Froome has taken significantly more salbutomol than allowed - it just doesn't pass the basic common sense filter for me (which doesn't mean I necessarily think he takes nothing at all...)

They evidently haven't a clue why the ultra high reading they got occured and thats why we see them scrabbling about trying every avenue possible.
 
Re: Re:

simoni said:
Bolder said:
Froome's protesting that he wants this resolved quickly is a bit hard to swallow. If there was a simple, airtight explanation, it would have been offered 6 months ago. It's pretty clear that the CAS -- if it gets to them -- will be presented with a 10-inch thick dossier of charts, graphs and irrelvant but convincing looking studies, with a corresponding PowerPoint presentation.

I am pretty sure ASO is tied in knots right now, however. They'd love to ban CF but OTOH would like the publicity that will come from him riding with an unresolved case. They've only got a few weeks to make a call, too.
I find it hard to believe that Froome has taken significantly more salbutomol than allowed - it just doesn't pass the basic common sense filter for me (which doesn't mean I necessarily think he takes nothing at all...)

They evidently haven't a clue why the ultra high reading they got occured and thats why we see them scrabbling about trying every avenue possible.
They *** up when they refilled (BB) after Los Muchachos crisis.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

Climbing said:
simoni said:
Bolder said:
Froome's protesting that he wants this resolved quickly is a bit hard to swallow. If there was a simple, airtight explanation, it would have been offered 6 months ago. It's pretty clear that the CAS -- if it gets to them -- will be presented with a 10-inch thick dossier of charts, graphs and irrelvant but convincing looking studies, with a corresponding PowerPoint presentation.

I am pretty sure ASO is tied in knots right now, however. They'd love to ban CF but OTOH would like the publicity that will come from him riding with an unresolved case. They've only got a few weeks to make a call, too.
I find it hard to believe that Froome has taken significantly more salbutomol than allowed - it just doesn't pass the basic common sense filter for me (which doesn't mean I necessarily think he takes nothing at all...)

They evidently haven't a clue why the ultra high reading they got occured and thats why we see them scrabbling about trying every avenue possible.
They **** up when they refilled (BB) after Los Muchachos crisis.
The BB theory doesn't hold up, reread some of Merckx Index post to understand why (sorry i'm a bit too busy RN to search and link them), that's not to say that the most likely explanation isn't that they *** up somewhere tough, saying i find it hard to believe that Froome has taken more than allowed, is like saying i find it hard to believe that he didn't take excretion time properly into account if he was busted for EPO. That salbutamol in his urine didn't come from nowhere, and the "magic kidneys" theory is improbable (and "improbable" is likely too kind a word here), so...
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Climbing said:
simoni said:
Bolder said:
Froome's protesting that he wants this resolved quickly is a bit hard to swallow. If there was a simple, airtight explanation, it would have been offered 6 months ago. It's pretty clear that the CAS -- if it gets to them -- will be presented with a 10-inch thick dossier of charts, graphs and irrelvant but convincing looking studies, with a corresponding PowerPoint presentation.

I am pretty sure ASO is tied in knots right now, however. They'd love to ban CF but OTOH would like the publicity that will come from him riding with an unresolved case. They've only got a few weeks to make a call, too.
I find it hard to believe that Froome has taken significantly more salbutomol than allowed - it just doesn't pass the basic common sense filter for me (which doesn't mean I necessarily think he takes nothing at all...)

They evidently haven't a clue why the ultra high reading they got occured and thats why we see them scrabbling about trying every avenue possible.
They **** up when they refilled (BB) after Los Muchachos crisis.
The BB theory doesn't hold up, reread some of Merckx Index post to understand why (sorry i'm a bit too busy RN to search and link them), that's not to say that the most likely explanation isn't that they **** up somewhere tough, saying i find it hard to believe that Froome has taken more than allowed, is like saying i find it hard to believe that he didn't take excretion time properly into account if he was busted for EPO. That salbutamol in his urine didn't come from nowhere, and the "magic kidneys" theory is improbable (and "improbable" is likely too kind a word here), so...
he did take significantly more...they found it..it was there

the question is how. The most probable answer is that he takes it via illegal methods as part of whatever program he is on to lose weight and keep weight off (the asthma providing cover up to 1200) and he literally took the wrong drug by mistake. That excuse won't fly obviously, for a number of reasons, and so we find ourselves with the shaggy defence.....'it wasn't me"
 
Aug 14, 2010
128
0
8,680
Re:

Gung Ho Gun said:
Officially stopping Froome from participating in the Tour discredits 5 of the last 6 Tours. I doubt ASO wants to send that message.
And yet, the UCI president thought he'd remind everyone of this option.
 
Re:

Gung Ho Gun said:
Officially stopping Froome from participating in the Tour discredits 5 of the last 6 Tours. I doubt ASO wants to send that message.
I think Froome discredited himself with his transformation and strange performances - reference: Ventoux 2013.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS