Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Aleajactaest]

Re:

when he attacked his cadence changed - but his hands werre on the tops....how did he change gear

electronic shifters can have shifters on the bar in addition to the brake levers.

 

[King Boonen]

The original Tweet opens: "informa la @Gazzetta_it". The reported Tweet opens: "la @Gazzetta_it". Clearly, no attempt to mislead. Just one of those errors that happens all the time.

No. It’s correct as stated. The error was on your side. Now let’s move on to the actual content, yes?

This is the end of it. There is clearly enough discussion for anyone to make up their own mind and I've posted another source, in English, making similar references to a La Gazzetta story.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Lappartient was in Rome so perhaps there to try and work on a “peace deal” but looks like Froome wants beat the rap and win it all.

Or perhaps he was there for the end of a big and important bike race. But hey, spin the best conspiracy theory you can...

You mean that because all vested parties were in the same place at the same time is not a good time to meet and talk?

That’s an odd conclusion to come to... just like the world championships for UCI elections or the Tour when contract negotiations take place for the following year - because the vested parties are in the same location at the same time.

Common sense

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

To bot, or not to bot, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:

Woah...deep!

Love Froome or Hate Froome?

Choose life or choose death?

Or is it just sport?

The last thing I'll say for the people that don't believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics, I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't dream big and I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

 

[Benotti69]

Tour de France organisers to try to block Froome’s participation

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/report-tour-de-france-organisers-to-try-to-block-froomes-participation/

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The Italian newspaper has said that the organisers will do what they can to block Froome from starting the Tour. It cites unnamed French sources as stating that organisers have reservations about the salbutamol case and the fact that he could ride while it is still up in the air, without a final resolution.

According to La Gazzetta journalist Ciro Scognamiglio, ASO would try to prevent Froome from starting on the basis of the damage he could do to the Tour’s reputation. It has such a provision in its rules, as does the UCI. In March UCI President David Lappartient said that in theory the governing body could also take this course of action, but said at the time he didn’t want to.

 

[thehog]

I would add, Boonen went to the French Olympic Committee, this time around it would be CAS. If ASO ban Froome it would be a public fight which might draw Froome/Sky out to show their actual cards for their defense. This could ugly.

What are we? 39 days from the Tour?

 

[saganftw]

this is an interesting thing,if ASO manage to block froome from TdF,could other organisers use this precedent and block him from other races while the investigation of his case will never be resolved? or at least prolonged with legal mumbo-jumbo

so they never find any doping,cycling remains "clean",the results stand,but froome would be "retired" by cycling organisers

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

Tour de France organisers to try to block Froome’s participation

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/report-tour-de-france-organisers-to-try-to-block-froomes-participation/

This would not come as a major surprise based on recent media releases. The comments from Hinault are not co-incidental and it is fairly clear to me that Prudhomme doesn't want Froome to line up at the tour. It would be his worst nightmare. If ASO now take their own steps to prevent Froome from lining up it will make the UCI look like even bigger lame ducks than they already are.

 

[MartinGT]

I would add, Boonen went to the French Olympic Committee, this time around it would be CAS. If ASO ban Froome it would be a public fight which might draw Froome/Sky out to show their actual cards for their defense. This could ugly.

What are we? 39 days from the Tour?

Enough for the Dawg to get rest and recover

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Tour de France organisers to try to block Froome’s participation

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/report-tour-de-france-organisers-to-try-to-block-froomes-participation/

This would not come as a major surprise based on recent media releases. The comments from Hinault are not co-incidental and it is fairly clear to me that Prudhomme doesn't want Froome to line up at the tour. It would be his worst nightmare. If ASO now take their own steps to prevent Froome from lining up it will make the UCI look like even bigger lame ducks than they already are.

I think it’s Lapparieant’s only option is to get ASO to force the issue as Sky will drag this to the off season.

 

[thehog]

I would add, Boonen went to the French Olympic Committee, this time around it would be CAS. If ASO ban Froome it would be a public fight which might draw Froome/Sky out to show their actual cards for their defense. This could ugly.

What are we? 39 days from the Tour?

Enough for the Dawg to get rest and recover

Ready for a 160km solo attack?

 

[thehog]

Update from Dopeology.org re: Boonen vis a vis Froome:

As @SSbike mentions, ASO failed to block Boonen in 2009. But a) the status of Boonen's case was not uncertain, b) he was not a potential title winner and c) evidence showed that ASO had greenlighted him then later backtracked under political pressure.

Not to take sides but the precedent might not be a good fit since the circumstances were quite different and lawyers for TB argued there was clear evidence of bad faith.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-secret-pro-an-insiders-view-on-chris-froomes-crazy-giro-attack/

This piece reads as a justification for Froome's performance, and as with much media commentary I have seen peddled in recent days, it seeks to downplay the absolute brilliant nature of the ride......but why try and dampen it?

When we witness something brilliant I cannot get my head around why so much of the commentary is based on trying to downplay the performance. He put almost 8.5 minutes into the 7th place finisher on the satge and looked fresh enough to do the same again the next day if required. Apart from the sheer inaccuracy peddled in terms of time gained on the descent, other nonsense put forward about aeros, refuelling, hi-viz jackets, tactics, gravel tracks etc is a basic insult to the intelligence of many cycling fans. It does not explain such dominance.

It appears that every single reason other than the sheer physical supremacy of Froome is being put forward as an explanation for the performance. So if you are a Froome fan or a sky fan why be afraid to herald a performance for the ages?

Well that's an easy one to answer....this is cycling, extraordinary performances don't just happen, they are met with suspicion and the performers are immediately judged to be doping until proven otherwise...which of course they never can be :sad:

 

[L'arriviste]

I would add, Boonen went to the French Olympic Committee, this time around it would be CAS.

Perhaps it's pedantic to mention it but Froome would not have recourse to CAS on this particular matter. The body that would decide on the matter would be the French National Sports Arbitration Chamber, which was the same authority in the Boonen decision.

The regulations of both ASO (for the Tour de France) and the UCI state this. The UCI states that it's a provision that applies to the Tour only. The only difference between 2009 and today is that it's expressly written out.

 

[Craigee]

Lol! Forever a Froome fan attempting to muddy the waters. My posts was an example of how ridiculous the original post was. Which I why I used the example with “range” and “roughly”.

Why can’t bots ever stick to reality?

So you manipulate figures to overplay a point and then accuse me of not sticking to reality for pointing it out....I see how it works now

That aside, I do agree that even 4.5w/kg for an amateur for 30 mins is pretty good...but back to the original point...for a WT rider, let alone the greatest GT rider for several generations 390w for about 10 minutes is hardly even trying. Week 3 of a GT or not.

Yeah but he probably did 390w for the whole stage.

 

[Craigee]

I've stayed away from the Froome/clinic stuff in general for some time, but I can't help but be a bit disgusted by the whole thing. If someone has irregular values/levels or failed a test, you at least temporarily suspend that rider until either the B tests are found to be negative or you have proof that he didn't dope or didn't take anything on purpose. I know it's not as black and white like that, particularly in pro cycling, but the Giro organizers did a massive disservice by allowing Froome to start the race.

I agree. It would have been a better race without Froome. Well he wasn't it for 17 stages was he? Just lit it up for a laugh at the finish.

 

[thehog]

I would add, Boonen went to the French Olympic Committee, this time around it would be CAS.

Perhaps it's pedantic to mention it but Froome would not have recourse to CAS on this particular matter. The body that would decide on the matter would be the French National Sports Arbitration Chamber, which was the same authority in the Boonen decision.

The regulations of both ASO (for the Tour de France) and the UCI state this. The UCI states that it's a provision that applies to the Tour only. The only difference between 2009 and today is that it's expressly written out.

Thanks, one other difference is than Boonen was initially accepted to ride by ASO and in “bad faith” (poor term) rescinded the entry. Thus some of the basis to allow him to ride was the withdrawal of the offer - according to Dopeology.

 

[VO2 Max]

Re: Re:

Tour de France organisers to try to block Froome’s participation

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/report-tour-de-france-organisers-to-try-to-block-froomes-participation/

This would not come as a major surprise based on recent media releases. The comments from Hinault are not co-incidental and it is fairly clear to me that Prudhomme doesn't want Froome to line up at the tour. It would be his worst nightmare. If ASO now take their own steps to prevent Froome from lining up it will make the UCI look like even bigger lame ducks than they already are.

I think it’s Lapparieant’s only option is to get ASO to force the issue as Sky will drag this to the off season.

So what happens if/when ASO do make their move? Froome/Sky have a restraint of trade defence against exclusion and can claim that any damage to the Tour is due to the leaking of the AAF rather than it existing confidentially, ie not their fault. Do CAS (French National... or whoever) have any scope to ask whether Sky are acting within the spirit of the rules and actively trying to resolve the case as quickly as possible? Is there any case to say that Sky bring the image of the sport purely by dragging the case on unnecessarily long, regardless of whether the public know at the time that the case exists? - hypothetically Froome can win the next ten Tours de France and then it eventually becomes known he was under an anti-doping case the whole time. I'm sure somewhere in this thread there is the info on how long the previous cases took to resolve. And how late could ASO leave it to decide, if they're happy to proceed without a replacement team could they just pull the Sky riders off the line at Noirmoutier and send the race off without them having time to lodge an appeal??? Or if things get shouty at the Friday presentation there might be a different argument that as a responsible organiser you need to exclude Froome for his own safety.

I hope it's not just sabre-rattling which can soon just be incitement for the roadside crowd to take their own action against Froome. And none of this is fair on the other riders at all of course.

 

[King Boonen]

The problem is ASO have signed up to follow the regulations laid out and Froome is within those. They can argue likely damage all they want but they should have been aware that this situation was possible when they agreed to those regulations and dealt with it then. I really don't see how they can block a participant for following the rules they signed up to, disrepute or not. Allowing them to sets a dangerous precedent which, I would guess, the UCI don't want setting.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Tour de France organisers to try to block Froome’s participation

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/report-tour-de-france-organisers-to-try-to-block-froomes-participation/

This would not come as a major surprise based on recent media releases. The comments from Hinault are not co-incidental and it is fairly clear to me that Prudhomme doesn't want Froome to line up at the tour. It would be his worst nightmare. If ASO now take their own steps to prevent Froome from lining up it will make the UCI look like even bigger lame ducks than they already are.

I think it’s Lapparieant’s only option is to get ASO to force the issue as Sky will drag this to the off season.

So what happens if/when ASO do make their move? Froome/Sky have a restraint of trade defence against exclusion and can claim that any damage to the Tour is due to the leaking of the AAF rather than it existing confidentially, ie not their fault. Do CAS (French National... or whoever) have any scope to ask whether Sky are acting within the spirit of the rules and actively trying to resolve the case as quickly as possible? Is there any case to say that Sky bring the image of the sport purely by dragging the case on unnecessarily long, regardless of whether the public know at the time that the case exists? - hypothetically Froome can win the next ten Tours de France and then it eventually becomes known he was under an anti-doping case the whole time. I'm sure somewhere in this thread there is the info on how long the previous cases took to resolve. And how late could ASO leave it to decide, if they're happy to proceed without a replacement team could they just pull the Sky riders off the line at Noirmoutier and send the race off without them having time to lodge an appeal??? Or if things get shouty at the Friday presentation there might be a different argument that as a responsible organiser you need to exclude Froome for his own safety.

I hope it's not just sabre-rattling which can soon just be incitement for the roadside crowd to take their own action against Froome. And none of this is fair on the other riders at all of course.

I don’t think anyone knows but at this point the UCI can’t say anything due to the process being confidential. If ASO force a ban, it becomes somewhat public and Sky will have to show their hand at what type of defense they are currently putting up - to a degree. Right now, Sky are winning the war on the road and in the press.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I would add, Boonen went to the French Olympic Committee, this time around it would be CAS. If ASO ban Froome it would be a public fight which might draw Froome/Sky out to show their actual cards for their defense. This could ugly.

What are we? 39 days from the Tour?

Which CAS? The Tour's rules, along with the UCI's rules for the Tour, say the appeal body is the Paris-based Chambre arbitrale du sport. Same as it was for Boonen. So ... this could ***.

Once more, with feeling - ASO's version of the rule:

In case of disagreement with UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members concerning the decisions thus taken by A.S.O., the dispute will be referred to the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport (the French sports arbitration agency), Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cedex 13, France.

And the UCI's version of the rule:

If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period. However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cedex 13).

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-secret-pro-an-insiders-view-on-chris-froomes-crazy-giro-attack/

This piece reads as a justification for Froome's performance, and as with much media commentary I have seen peddled in recent days, it seeks to downplay the absolute brilliant nature of the ride......but why try and dampen it?

When we witness something brilliant I cannot get my head around why so much of the commentary is based on trying to downplay the performance. He put almost 8.5 minutes into the 7th place finisher on the satge and looked fresh enough to do the same again the next day if required. Apart from the sheer inaccuracy peddled in terms of time gained on the descent, other nonsense put forward about aeros, refuelling, hi-viz jackets, tactics, gravel tracks etc is a basic insult to the intelligence of many cycling fans. It does not explain such dominance.

It appears that every single reason other than the sheer physical supremacy of Froome is being put forward as an explanation for the performance. So if you are a Froome fan or a sky fan why be afraid to herald a performance for the ages?

Well that's an easy one to answer....this is cycling, extraordinary performances don't just happen, they are met with suspicion and the performers are immediately judged to be doping until proven otherwise...which of course they never can be :sad:

The question was slightly rhetorical of course!

I listened to initial comments directly after the stage from Ashley House who said he was lost for words, from Brian Smith who asked 'was that real?', from Sean Kelly who referred to it as unbelievable, from Matt White who said he never seen a performance like that in a grand tour.....ever! Then you had Lance Armstrong who said it was one of the most monumental performances of all time and certainly of the last 10 years whilst you had George Bennett who was laughing at the absurdity of it (yes, I know he then rowed back some time later).

On the other hand the Sky camp and their supporters were much more subdued. I watched Froome and Brailsford interviewed after the stage and you would expect them to be positively buzzing but a body language expert would have been amazed to have been told that they had just effectively won the Giro and produced a performance for the ages in the process. IIRC Brailsford even said directly after the stage that he thought that morning that there was a strong possibility of getting the maglia rosa at the end of the day and acted like it was totally normal. He must have been one of the few who had believed this prior to the stage.

Some of the UK media commentary since the race ended has continued with this same theme of downplaying the performance and achievement of his Giro victory. If there is nothing to hide well then why not salute the magnitude of his achievement rather than put it down to the inability of his opponents to perform and other even more absurd factors. Otherwise it just ends up looking like PR bluster to divert away from the sheer physical supremacy that Froome had over 95% of the field.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

this is an interesting thing,if ASO manage to block froome from TdF,could other organisers use this precedent and block him from other races while the investigation of his case will never be resolved? or at least prolonged with legal mumbo-jumbo

so they never find any doping,cycling remains "clean",the results stand,but froome would be "retired" by cycling organisers

Lappartient says the UCI's disrepute rule - 2.2.10 - is not enough to block Froome. But is talking up ASO's version of the same rule as being strong enough (which it isn't). So, no, not according to Lappartient.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Update from Dopeology.org re: Boonen vis a vis Froome:

As @SSbike mentions, ASO failed to block Boonen in 2009. But a) the status of Boonen's case was not uncertain, b) he was not a potential title winner and c) evidence showed that ASO had greenlighted him then later backtracked under political pressure.

Not to take sides but the precedent might not be a good fit since the circumstances were quite different and lawyers for TB argued there was clear evidence of bad faith.

Why are you referencing Boonen TheHog - according to your research there's no such thing as precedent so Boonen - and Astana, and Valverde - are all irrelevant. Remember?