Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1270 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
King Boonen said:
Surely the announcement comes pretty much as soon as the decision is made. Anti-doping is supposed to be independent so in theory it should just be released and the parties involved have to deal with it.

Unless immediately appealed.
CAS do do expedited appeals but not for stuff like this. Plus, a quick appeal leaves no time to prepare.
Bets on a CADF announcement the night before the Tour? :eek:
About what? We've had the ABP case...
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
Surely the announcement comes pretty much as soon as the decision is made. Anti-doping is supposed to be independent so in theory it should just be released and the parties involved have to deal with it.
Normally I would agree with you, but this is a very unusual situation. They have already delayed the decision for what I imagine is an unprecedented amount of time for a rider who has not been suspended. They have basically given Froome and his team carte blanche to take as much time as he wants. Given that, I find it hard to believe they’re going to announce a decision right before, let alone during, the Tour. If Haas is inclined to do so, all Morgan has to do is send him another hundred pages. It seems that Haas has not used his authority to terminate that phase of the process.

Also, if I understand the process correctly, the decision is not announced until the entire report is written up. That presumably takes several weeks. So suppose Haas came to his decision right now. He probably would not be able to finish writing the report until after the Tour started, so he could not announce the decision until then. Would he do that, knowing the enormous disruption caused if Froome had to be pulled out in the middle of the race? I don't know. If it was a proactive ban, then he really should announce it at that time, but if the report was not ready until a few days before the end of the Tour, would he just wait until the Tour was over? My guess is yes.

If the decision were a retroactive ban, he wouldn't face this difficulty, and possibly he might even be inclined to rule in that manner for just that reason. Though the situation seems to favor a proactive ban, a retroactive ban, beginning at the time of the AAF, has the huge advantage of not being affected by the timing of the decision.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
King Boonen said:
Surely the announcement comes pretty much as soon as the decision is made. Anti-doping is supposed to be independent so in theory it should just be released and the parties involved have to deal with it.

Unless immediately appealed.
CAS do do expedited appeals but not for stuff like this. Plus, a quick appeal leaves no time to prepare.
Bets on a CADF announcement the night before the Tour? :eek:
About what? We've had the ABP case...
This game again. Please get a sense of humor, for the life of us...
 
Re:

yaco said:
Do we know if there has been an actual hearing yet ? I can't imagine this case has been resolved one way or another just with the exchanging and analysing of documents.
That's another issue. It was argued that there couldn't be a hearing during the Giro, because Froome couldn't attend (though he probably could have participated by video conferencing, which I think is what many riders do; the hearing could have been held in the evening or evenings). The same obviously would apply to the Tour.

But there doesn't have to be a hearing. There was no hearing in 8/13 previous CADF decisions. Either of the parties can request there be no hearing, but the judge I believe has final say, and can simply make his decision without one if he believes it isn't necessary. If the documented evidence is clear enough to him, he may feel comfortable in making a ruling at that point. Speaking as a scientist, I would prefer not to have a hearing if I were a judge, because all the evidence should be contained in the documents, whereas a hearing allows rhetoric to be inserted into the process.

But Haas is not a scientist, and probably doesn't view it in the same way. And again, in a case as unusual as this, Haas might feel he had to give the defendant every possible chance. If he said there would be no hearing, Morgan would probably protest, particularly if not having a hearing increased the chances of a decision before the Tour. And if Froome's defense really is going to argue that the salbutamol criterion is unfair, I think a hearing would have to be held. If this is their defense, the stakes are enormous, far more than just Froome. Every athlete who has been sanctioned for a salbutamol level less than 2000 ng/ml--and that is everyone I'm aware of but for that Swiss track runner--would have grounds for suing UCI.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
yaco said:
Do we know if there has been an actual hearing yet ? I can't imagine this case has been resolved one way or another just with the exchanging and analysing of documents.
That's another issue. It was argued that there couldn't be a hearing during the Giro, because Froome couldn't attend (though he probably could have participated by video conferencing, which I think is what many riders do; the hearing could have been held in the evening or evenings). The same obviously would apply to the Tour.

But there doesn't have to be a hearing. There was no hearing in 8/13 previous CADF decisions. Either of the parties can request there be no hearing, but the judge I believe has final say, and can simply make his decision without one if he believes it isn't necessary. If the documented evidence is clear enough to him, he may feel comfortable in making a ruling at that point. Speaking as a scientist, I would prefer not to have a hearing if I were a judge, because all the evidence should be contained in the documents, whereas a hearing allows rhetoric to be inserted into the process.

But Haas is not a scientist, and probably doesn't view it in the same way. And again, in a case as unusual as this, Haas might feel he had to give the defendant every possible chance. If he said there would be no hearing, Morgan would probably protest, particularly if not having a hearing increased the chances of a decision before the Tour. And if Froome's defense really is going to argue that the salbutamol criterion is unfair, I think a hearing would have to be held. If this is their defense, the stakes are enormous, far more than just Froome. Every athlete who has been sanctioned for a salbutamol level less than 2000 ng/ml--and that is everyone I'm aware of but for that Swiss track runner--would have grounds for suing UCI.
It's a strategy that's worked for Morgan before. I think it's how he got that Liverpool player off.
 
Prudy again all but ruling out whacking Froome with the disrepute stick (and all but admitting why):
Legally, he can [start]
Interestingly, while still passing the blame back to the UCI he's now making it clear that it is not the fault of ASO's man in Aigle, Lappy:
"It's terrible that the sporting authorities have not managed to solve this problem before the start of the world's biggest race. I won't say anything more but of course, rules have to be modified.

"An abnormal control doesn't mean anything to a large public. It has to be black or white, positive or negative."

Prudhomme, once a journalist, would not blame the situation on the UCI's president, David Lappartient, who took over the position from Brian Cookson last autumn.

"He has already changed a lot of things but he couldn't change everything", Prudhomme said.
Time, I think, for Cooky to defend his tarnished reputation...

(A part of me does wish ASO did play the disrepute card. Just to see the looks on faces when CAS laughed it out of court.)
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Prudy again all but ruling out whacking Froome with the disrepute stick (and all but admitting why):
Legally, he can [start]
Interestingly, while still passing the blame back to the UCI he's now making it clear that it is not the fault of ASO's man in Aigle, Lappy:
"It's terrible that the sporting authorities have not managed to solve this problem before the start of the world's biggest race. I won't say anything more but of course, rules have to be modified.

"An abnormal control doesn't mean anything to a large public. It has to be black or white, positive or negative."

Prudhomme, once a journalist, would not blame the situation on the UCI's president, David Lappartient, who took over the position from Brian Cookson last autumn.

"He has already changed a lot of things but he couldn't change everything", Prudhomme said.
Time, I think, for Cooky to defend his tarnished reputation...

(A part of me does wish ASO did play the disrepute card. Just to see the looks on faces when CAS laughed it out of court.)
Aha! NO-body expects Prudy’s Disrepute Card Inquisition!
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Prudy again all but ruling out whacking Froome with the disrepute stick (and all but admitting why):
Legally, he can [start]
Interestingly, while still passing the blame back to the UCI he's now making it clear that it is not the fault of ASO's man in Aigle, Lappy:
"It's terrible that the sporting authorities have not managed to solve this problem before the start of the world's biggest race. I won't say anything more but of course, rules have to be modified.

"An abnormal control doesn't mean anything to a large public. It has to be black or white, positive or negative."

Prudhomme, once a journalist, would not blame the situation on the UCI's president, David Lappartient, who took over the position from Brian Cookson last autumn.

"He has already changed a lot of things but he couldn't change everything", Prudhomme said.
Time, I think, for Cooky to defend his tarnished reputation...

(A part of me does wish ASO did play the disrepute card. Just to see the looks on faces when CAS laughed it out of court.)
Cooky doesn't have the back bone to do it.
 
Merckx index said:
Anyone want to bet on which concludes first? The Mueller investigation or the Froome case?

Either one in our lifetimes?
Mueller needs to wait for the midterms, an impeachment cannot be successful without the Dems controlling he senate. Lappy pulled a coup for the election maybe he has something hot his sleeve just before the Tour? I’m still expecting a leak of some sort just like the Stade 2 documentary on the faulty iPads pre election.
 
thehog said:
Merckx index said:
Anyone want to bet on which concludes first? The Mueller investigation or the Froome case?

Either one in our lifetimes?
Mueller needs to wait for the midterms, an impeachment cannot be successful without the Dems controlling he senate. Lappy pulled a coup for the election maybe he has something hot his sleeve just before the Tour? I’m still expecting a leak of some sort just like the Stade 2 documentary on the faulty iPads pre election.
Would Lappy (or a leak, I should say) dare to threw dirt on Cookson/Gibbs/Sky before TdF or would that just bring his own UCI house down with him?
 
Surely the French Court is just going to ask why didn't you do the same for any other rider with a pending CAS case that you did allow to race? I can't see how it can apply. Boonen won. I'm not sure of anyother cases where ASO blocked a rider. They blocked Astana iirc and I assume Astana didn't got to court?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Surely the French Court is just going to ask why didn't you do the same for any other rider with a pending CAS case that you did allow to race? I can't see how it can apply. Boonen won. I'm not sure of anyother cases where ASO blocked a rider. They blocked Astana iirc and I assume Astana didn't got to court?
"Team Sky has already appealed this decision to the National Olympic Committee of French Sport, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 3 with a decision set to made the following day."

Do we have the slightest idea how such a committee would be likely to decide? I don't really think that "surely" comes into it.
 
Re:

yaco said:
I suspect this will end in tears for the ASO - Will add the ASO could have made this decision weeks ago - Colour me cynical.
With Boonen's case as precedent, it does not look good for ASO, but Prdhomme has nailed his colours firmly to the mast. If something happens to Froome or a Sky rider, this might well end up backfiring spectacularly.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS