Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1201 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Benotti69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Benotti69 said:
Rollthedice said:
What if, in this beautiful sport Froome gets a retroactive ban, gets stripped of his, let's say 6th place at the Giro and rides Tour winning it for the fifth time?
ASO wont let Froome win it.
They did such a good job stopping LA get to seven.
I didn't notice they were trying.

But i did notice he didn't win 8.
This is what I love. Someone can say that something will happen, like say that RCS will whack Froome over the head with the disrepute clause, at the eleventh hour too, so he won't have time to appeal. And then when that doesn't happen they can say well that's cause RCS didn't want to, they're actually happy having Froome in the race, especially with the top secret deal done with Lappartient that Vegni blabbed about. (But, of course, Vegni did want to give Froome a one day pass to use his motor on the Zoncolan, but he wouldn't let Poels have one, just look at the way the Dutchman's legs weren't egg-whisking up the climb.) So now we've got ASO having the magical ability to stop Froome winning, like they've stopped oh, I don't know, no one winning in the past (with the exception of LA, who they stopped getting to eight by making him retire, and Merckx in 75 when they ordered that fan to punch his lights out, and Delgado in 89 when they had him tied and bound in the boot of a car right when he should have been starting the prologue) and if that doesn't actually happen and - God forbid - the salbutamol thing is still unresolved and Froome actually wins the bloody Tour, the argument will be that, well, actually, ASO didn't really try. They didn't send their ninja mechanics in at midnight to add iron filings to his bottom bracket or Prudhomme just couldn't bring himself to order his driver to force Froome off the road in the neutral zone, or whatever bit of nonsense you want to make up for yourself.
This is a poorly constructed argument. Armstrong was global and his winning was on the cusp of globalisation and the Internet. ASO needed him just as much as Armstrong needed the Tour. Which prior to Armstrong even with LeMond winning was still fairly much a European only event in terms of marketing and notoriety. Armstrong winning the Tour 7 times did become boring but the race became bigger and bigger because of him.

Froome completely different kettle of fish. He is no where near as marketable as Armstrong was with back story and brashness.

LeBlanc is gone and new management already has a global event that doesn’t need Froome to make their race any greater than it already is.

Perhaps a little more thought put into posts rather than arguing for the sake of arguing wouldn’t go astray.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
This is a poorly constructed argument. Armstrong was global and his winning was on the cusp of globalisation and the Internet. ASO needed him just as much as Armstrong needed the Tour. Which prior to Armstrong even with LeMond winning was still fairly much a European only event in terms of marketing and notoriety. Armstrong winning the Tour 7 times did become boring but the race became bigger and bigger because of him.

Froome completely different kettle of fish. He is no where near as marketable as Armstrong was with back story and brashness.

LeBlanc is gone and new management already has a global event that doesn’t need Froome to make their race any greater than it already is.

Perhaps a little more thought put into posts rather than arguing for the sake of arguing wouldn’t go astray.
LOL.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is a poorly constructed argument. Armstrong was global and his winning was on the cusp of globalisation and the Internet. ASO needed him just as much as Armstrong needed the Tour. Which prior to Armstrong even with LeMond winning was still fairly much a European only event in terms of marketing and notoriety. Armstrong winning the Tour 7 times did become boring but the race became bigger and bigger because of him.

Froome completely different kettle of fish. He is no where near as marketable as Armstrong was with back story and brashness.

LeBlanc is gone and new management already has a global event that doesn’t need Froome to make their race any greater than it already is.

Perhaps a little more thought put into posts rather than arguing for the sake of arguing wouldn’t go astray.
LOL.
We can take it you can’t form a response, thanks for playing :p
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is a poorly constructed argument. Armstrong was global and his winning was on the cusp of globalisation and the Internet. ASO needed him just as much as Armstrong needed the Tour. Which prior to Armstrong even with LeMond winning was still fairly much a European only event in terms of marketing and notoriety. Armstrong winning the Tour 7 times did become boring but the race became bigger and bigger because of him.

Froome completely different kettle of fish. He is no where near as marketable as Armstrong was with back story and brashness.

LeBlanc is gone and new management already has a global event that doesn’t need Froome to make their race any greater than it already is.

Perhaps a little more thought put into posts rather than arguing for the sake of arguing wouldn’t go astray.
LOL.
We can take it you can’t form a response, thanks for playing :p
You will read into that what you want to read in to that. The same way you read all sorts on nonsense into the things that happen in bike races.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is a poorly constructed argument. Armstrong was global and his winning was on the cusp of globalisation and the Internet. ASO needed him just as much as Armstrong needed the Tour. Which prior to Armstrong even with LeMond winning was still fairly much a European only event in terms of marketing and notoriety. Armstrong winning the Tour 7 times did become boring but the race became bigger and bigger because of him.

Froome completely different kettle of fish. He is no where near as marketable as Armstrong was with back story and brashness.

LeBlanc is gone and new management already has a global event that doesn’t need Froome to make their race any greater than it already is.

Perhaps a little more thought put into posts rather than arguing for the sake of arguing wouldn’t go astray.
LOL.
We can take it you can’t form a response, thanks for playing :p
You will read into that what you want to read in to that. The same way you read all sorts on nonsense into the things that happen in bike races.
Nope that won’t fly. You appear to disengage when anyone ever responds to your posts - the “you should read what I wrote” is your standard go to on this forum. At least take the time and thought to put together a retort when you are challenged (if capable).

Try again.
 
I think FMK adds value, he clearly spends a long time on his research and posts but appears to drop the ball a little when challenged. Unsure why but we all have our different styles. Would like to see him engage more rather taking posts personally.
 
Thanks for the entertaining little interchange. I enjoyed that.

Now just over 6 weeks to the Grand Depart. When would be a suitable time to announce the verdict of the tribunal, allowing a suitably decent pause after the end of the Giro and not too close to the Tour? Or will Mike Morgan be able to spin this out till August with his delaying tactics?
 
thehog said:
I think FMK adds value, he clearly spends a long time on his research and posts but appears to drop the ball a little when challenged. Unsure why but we all have our different styles. Would like to see him engage more rather taking posts personally.
And what exactly do you think you've challenged me on this time? Being your default setting for me, it's hard to work up the energy to pay attention to you.
 
Re:

wirral said:
Thanks for the entertaining little interchange. I enjoyed that.

Now just over 6 weeks to the Grand Depart. When would be a suitable time to announce the verdict of the tribunal, allowing a suitably decent pause after the end of the Giro and not too close to the Tour? Or will Mike Morgan be able to spin this out till August with his delaying tactics?
I’m sure this story hasn’t finished as yet, Dawg will surprise us yet with a new illness :p
 
UCI President David Lappartient has said that Chris Froome's salbutamol case may not be concluded before Tour de France in July. Lappartient, who was voted in last September, told Cyclingnews that he had hoped the case would be resolved before the Giro d'Italia but now said that it could carry on through the French Grand Tour.
This could backfire on Froome. If he fails to win either the Giro or the Tour, then is banned, say, for a year following the Tour, he won't be able to ride the Tour again till 2020, when he will be 35 and have to deal with Yates going for his second Tour victory in a row. :) Delaying obviously only helps if Froome accomplishes what he wants during the period before the decision. Then again, he'd probably be less likely to win next year than this year.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
UCI President David Lappartient has said that Chris Froome's salbutamol case may not be concluded before Tour de France in July. Lappartient, who was voted in last September, told Cyclingnews that he had hoped the case would be resolved before the Giro d'Italia but now said that it could carry on through the French Grand Tour.
This could backfire on Froome. If he fails to win either the Giro or the Tour, then is banned, say, for a year following the Tour, he won't be able to ride the Tour again till 2020, when he will be 35 and have to deal with Yates going for his second Tour victory in a row. :) Delaying obviously only helps if Froome accomplishes what he wants during the period before the decision. Then again, he'd probably be less likely to win next year than this year.
And Lappartiant is trying to wave the disrepute stick for ASO, saying their version of the clause is diferent to the one in the UCI's rules.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
UCI President David Lappartient has said that Chris Froome's salbutamol case may not be concluded before Tour de France in July. Lappartient, who was voted in last September, told Cyclingnews that he had hoped the case would be resolved before the Giro d'Italia but now said that it could carry on through the French Grand Tour.
This could backfire on Froome. If he fails to win either the Giro or the Tour, then is banned, say, for a year following the Tour, he won't be able to ride the Tour again till 2020, when he will be 35 and have to deal with Yates going for his second Tour victory in a row. :) Delaying obviously only helps if Froome accomplishes what he wants during the period before the decision. Then again, he'd probably be less likely to win next year than this year.
If Lappartient has the mettle he might need to start pushing ASO to ban Froome. Naturally Froome / Sky will appeal it but won’t be a very good PR exercise for Dawg.

Fun & games, fun and games.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Re: Re:

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......
 
Re: Re:

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.
If he gets to ride the Tour and then receives a small ban post TDF, he has still won.
 
Apr 23, 2016
267
5
2,845
Re: Re:

thehog 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.
If he gets to ride the Tour and then gets a small ban post, he has still won.
Looking at the big picture, what is the best way for this to be resolved? In other words, look at it from Lappartient's point of view.

My guess: Froome rides the tour and finishes somewhere near the top, but not at the top. Then, sometime after the tour, this is all somehow gets swept under the rug and Froome never wins a grand tour again (by agreement).
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
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
5,273
0
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."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY