Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[wirral]

Does anyone have any idea how quickly the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will come to a decision on Froome's appeal against the ASO decision not to allow him to race? I understand the hearing is on 3 July (Tuesday).

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

In the Roson case it's an adverse analytical finding of his biological passport. So this isn't a sample that wasn't tested, this is the bio passport issue. This isn't a failed or not failed at the time anti-doping test. Rather Roson or Caja Rural knew about it before no idea. However it does appear Movistar did not know about until this past week.

The biopassport involves testing samples! All laboratory anti-doping does. But that’s irrelevant. I was responding to your use of this as an example of how UCI can’t act in a timely manner. As I said before, there may or may not be valid reasons why the problem couldn’t be identified before, but it is not an example of UCI’s being slow to act. Either they missed this completely due to some slip-up, or the problem only became apparent after further analysis. E.g., maybe a new algorithm has been developed in the past year, I don’t know. Or perhaps samples taken from Roson following Jan. 2017 indicated a baseline not compatible with the Jan 17 sample.

But this is not at all like a situation where a rider is notified of an AAF, is suspended, and the case drags on and on. Roson was not suspended until last week, which means he wasn’t notified of the AAF until then. It may be possible—though I doubt it—that he was notified much earlier of anomalies in his passport, but he wouldn’t have been told that he was about to be suspended.

You chopped my post, when I posted in the Froome thread I also added: "Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread."

I didn’t say you were defending Froome. You claimed that the delay wasn’t Froome’s fault, that is Clinic discussion.

That post was about ASO's actions, and the joke system that the UCI/WADA/CAS are.

Yet nothing in your post supported your contention that they constitute a joke system.

Maybe CF/Sky are the ones responsible for making it take so long, but if they lose, that's just more results that will get tossed so I'm not sure if I buy that one.

No, as has been discussed here often and in detail, if Froome is banned it will probably be proactive, which means he will keep the Giro and, if the decision comes after the Tour, his results there, too. Even in the unlikely event that the ban is back-dated, and covers the Giro and/or the Tour, the delay allows him to get results that would stand in the event that he successfully appealed the decision to CAS. Thus there is no downside at all for Froome to delaying, other than the pressure to stop racing.

Does anyone have any idea how quickly the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will come to a decision on Froome's appeal against the ASO decision not to allow him to race? I understand the hearing is on 3 July (Tuesday).

Of course. Proof that they're coordinating this with the Clinic.

 

[Robert5091]

Re:

Does anyone have any idea how quickly the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will come to a decision on Froome's appeal against the ASO decision not to allow him to race? I understand the hearing is on 3 July (Tuesday).

Expected the next day - Wednesday - according to the Press.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

In the Roson case it's an adverse analytical finding of his biological passport. So this isn't a sample that wasn't tested, this is the bio passport issue. This isn't a failed or not failed at the time anti-doping test. Rather Roson or Caja Rural knew about it before no idea. However it does appear Movistar did not know about until this past week.

The biopassport involves testing samples! All laboratory anti-doping does. But that’s irrelevant. I was responding to your use of this as an example of how UCI can’t act in a timely manner. As I said before, there may or may not be valid reasons why the problem couldn’t be identified before, but it is not an example of UCI’s being slow to act. Either they missed this completely due to some slip-up, or the problem only became apparent after further analysis. E.g., maybe a new algorithm has been developed in the past year, I don’t know. Or perhaps samples taken from Roson following Jan. 2017 indicated a baseline not compatible with the Jan 17 sample.

But this is not at all like a situation where a rider is notified of an AAF, is suspended, and the case drags on and on. Roson was not suspended until last week, which means he wasn’t notified of the AAF until then. It may be possible—though I doubt it—that he was notified much earlier of anomalies in his passport, but he wouldn’t have been told that he was about to be suspended.

You chopped my post, when I posted in the Froome thread I also added: "Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread."

I didn’t say you were defending Froome. You claimed that the delay wasn’t Froome’s fault, that is Clinic discussion.

That post was about ASO's actions, and the joke system that the UCI/WADA/CAS are.

Yet nothing in your post supported your contention that they constitute a joke system.

Maybe CF/Sky are the ones responsible for making it take so long, but if they lose, that's just more results that will get tossed so I'm not sure if I buy that one.

No, as has been discussed here often and in detail, if Froome is banned it will probably be proactive, which means he will keep the Giro and, if the decision comes after the Tour, his results there, too. Even in the unlikely event that the ban is back-dated, and covers the Giro and/or the Tour, the delay allows him to get results that would stand in the event that he successfully appealed the decision to CAS. Thus there is no downside at all for Froome to delaying, other than the pressure to stop racing.

Does anyone have any idea how quickly the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will come to a decision on Froome's appeal against the ASO decision not to allow him to race? I understand the hearing is on 3 July (Tuesday).

Of course. Proof that they're coordinating this with the Clinic.

Legal discussion.
Google.
Why?

 

[wirral]

Re: Re:

Does anyone have any idea how quickly the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will come to a decision on Froome's appeal against the ASO decision not to allow him to race? I understand the hearing is on 3 July (Tuesday).

Expected the next day - Wednesday - according to the Press.

Thank you.

 

[wirral]

Re: Re:

[quote="

Legal discussion.
Google.
Why?

Since you stated the reason for the delay lay with the UCI without supporting evidence, you opened the line of discussion as to the reason behind the delay in resolving the case.

The delay has clearly been caused by
a. Sky fighting the AAF.
b. Sky not showing how the AAF occurred within the rules.
c. Sky not negotiating a penalty.
d. Sky landing 1500 pages on the judge's desk.
e. Sky's plan to play out the process till after the Tour de France.

That discussion is clearly a doping-related discussion. It cannot be held without discussing doping. Thus it belongs in the Clinic.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

[quote="

Legal discussion.
Google.
Why?

Since you stated the reason for the delay lay with the UCI without supporting evidence, you opened the line of discussion as to the reason behind the delay in resolving the case.

The delay has clearly been caused by
a. Sky fighting the AAF.
b. Sky not showing how the AAF occurred within the rules.
c. Sky not negotiating a penalty.
d. Sky landing 1500 pages on the judge's desk.
e. Sky's plan to play out the process till after the Tour de France.

That discussion is clearly a doping-related discussion. It cannot be held without discussing doping. Thus it belongs in the Clinic.

The biggest reason CF and his team delaying is very simple to me. He is extending his career.

As soon as he is (if) banned for Salbutamol, Sky needs to fire him due to their own rules. If they don't, they'll smack their own face on what they've been preaching for the past 8 years or so. They will not take that PR hit, not even for Froome. And Froome knows he will not get the "system" and support in any other team that would make him GT winner again. And without GT wins, Chris Froome is frankly pretty worthless rider.

 

[yaco]

Anti-Doping matters take time to resolve if challenged by the athlete for the simple reason that you need to find time for both sets of legal reps to work on the case - These legal reps are simultaneously working on a number of different cases, hence the delays - And the Froome case is even more complex, hence longer delays - My memory tells me the AAF's from the pre TDF 2017 and pre Vuelta 2017 are still unresolved, and these were positive drug tests - There is too much impatience in the world.

 

[Robert5091]

Froome/Sky announced Froome's Giro/Tour double attempt before the leak of Froome's AAF. Sky's management must have assumed that all would be kept under wraps until some decision long in the future (or no public decision at all, which is possible, I believe). Sky's legal team have a vested interest in keeping this circus on the road for as long as possible and so do SDB & Co.(If you think Froome will be sacked by Sky then sorry, I don't see that happening - why? They keep saying he's done nothing wrong!)

 

[bambino]

Re:

Froome/Sky announced Froome's Giro/Tour double attempt before the leak of Froome's AAF. Sky's management must have assumed that all would be kept under wraps until some decision long in the future (or no public decision at all, which is possible, I believe). Sky's legal team have a vested interest in keeping this circus on the road for as long as possible and so do SDB & Co.(If you think Froome will be sacked by Sky then sorry, I don't see that happening - why? They keep saying he's done nothing wrong!)

You are assuming Sky actually is part of core defence in Froome's salbutamol case, but I see no evidence they actually are. And I don't think they actually participate in the defence that much. There are clear indications in i.e Sir DB's interviews in the early days of leak which indicates it is Froome's matter, not Sky matter. Since then, radiosilence.

I actually think Sky has decided to carry on business as usual like nothing has happened and will take any measures only after the decision comes out. Before that, nothing here to see for them.

 

[brownbobby]

Increasing weight in the UK press this morning behind the suggestion that the UCI are going to announce the decision on the case this week, one suggestion being it will be as early as today.

Maybe this ASO play was the final leverage required to force their hand.

 

[samhocking]

Increasing weight in the UK press this morning behind the suggestion that the UCI are going to announce the decision on the case this week, one suggestion being it will be as early as today.

Maybe this ASO play was the final leverage required to force their hand.

Yep, there were rumours all last week it was coming up any day now.

 

[spalco]

Re:

Madiot:

Had it concerned a low-key rider, the case would have been resolved a long time ago. It could have been solved by Froome himself, he only had to say: 'listen, I made a mistake in the dosage, I take cognizance of it, I make a public apology and I accept a penalty.' At the limit, the penalty could have been… I won't say negotiated, but adjusted, had Froome and his team been in good faith. On the other hand, they've taken the case purely on legal basis."

Yeah, Madiot is right. Realistically viewed, Froome's doping case is total chickenshit, just like Contador's clenbuterol case was. No EPO, no transfusion, no fancy peptides, not even amphetamines or at least some steroid creme? Just a couple too many puffs on the asthma inhaler, when the norwegian cross country skiiers are practically hotboxing the astma spray? It's nothing.

Everything that followed, everything, is Froome's fault for not standing up and admitting his mistake.
Of course when Froome is playing hardball, zero-tolerance, then everyone else can push back also.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

By what principle does the French Olympic committee have jurisdiction on this? The French Cycling Federation may be subject to them, but not ASO.

Because that’s what the rules state. Do you want it be the Privy Court?

Which rules?

I would have thought that the competent authority would be either French civil courts or CAS.

Why on earth would you think I would want it to be the "privy court" (by which I presume you mean the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)?

If you don't know an answer, that's fine: we are in the same boat, and we might both benefit from someone else's knowledge. A sarcastic trolling response is never the appropriate one.

It’s not the Olympic committee, it’s the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport.

UCI regulations 2.2.010bis

Thank you. The Chambre is convened by CNOSF, so the journalists were I suppose partially correct.

That UCI provision (oddly, ad adjunct to the rule about provision of hotel accommodation) says

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.

Hmmmm: special cases always make me a bit suspicious about clarity and purpose.

It also says:

The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.
In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.

Ah: so the decision has already been ratified by the UCI, either in the person of the commissaires or Tom Van Damme (PCC president). Unless that is the basis of the appeal

 

[bambino]

If I'm not mistaken (and someone also pointed this here earlier), the first part of 2.2.010bis refers to exclusions from races based on rules violation etc. such as Sagan's case last year.

The latter part of the rule is applicable in Froome's case which is spesific right for race organizers and does not require the same procedure via commissaire panel and/or the UCI council president.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

By what principle does the French Olympic committee have jurisdiction on this? The French Cycling Federation may be subject to them, but not ASO.

Because that’s what the rules state. Do you want it be the Privy Court?

Which rules?

I would have thought that the competent authority would be either French civil courts or CAS.

Why on earth would you think I would want it to be the "privy court" (by which I presume you mean the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)?

If you don't know an answer, that's fine: we are in the same boat, and we might both benefit from someone else's knowledge. A sarcastic trolling response is never the appropriate one.

It’s not the Olympic committee, it’s the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport.

UCI regulations 2.2.010bis

I think the original question was to find out by what rule it goes to the arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF), which you don't think it does.

Just wondering why Le Monde clearly refers to "la chambre arbitrale du Comité national olympique du sport français - arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF)" if that's not right.

That may come from one of the rules applicable only to the Tour de France, of course, as I have read it has a different regime.

Or are you referring to the same arbitration chamber perhaps?

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Madiot:

Had it concerned a low-key rider, the case would have been resolved a long time ago. It could have been solved by Froome himself, he only had to say: 'listen, I made a mistake in the dosage, I take cognizance of it, I make a public apology and I accept a penalty.' At the limit, the penalty could have been… I won't say negotiated, but adjusted, had Froome and his team been in good faith. On the other hand, they've taken the case purely on legal basis."

Yeah, Madiot is right. Realistically viewed, Froome's doping case is total chickenshit, just like Contador's clenbuterol case was. No EPO, no transfusion, no fancy peptides, not even amphetamines or at least some steroid creme? Just a couple too many puffs on the asthma inhaler, when the norwegian cross country skiiers are practically hotboxing the astma spray? It's nothing.

Everything that followed, everything, is Froome's fault for not standing up and admitting his mistake.
Of course when Froome is playing hardball, zero-tolerance, then everyone else can push back also.

Need to point out though that none of the Norwegian XC skiers has been so far tested with such an amount of Salbutamol in their system although some of them admitted taking it via Nebulizers

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

By what principle does the French Olympic committee have jurisdiction on this? The French Cycling Federation may be subject to them, but not ASO.

Because that’s what the rules state. Do you want it be the Privy Court?

Which rules?

I would have thought that the competent authority would be either French civil courts or CAS.

Why on earth would you think I would want it to be the "privy court" (by which I presume you mean the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)?

If you don't know an answer, that's fine: we are in the same boat, and we might both benefit from someone else's knowledge. A sarcastic trolling response is never the appropriate one.

It’s not the Olympic committee, it’s the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport.

UCI regulations 2.2.010bis

I think the original question was to find out by what rule it goes to the arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF), which you don't think it does.

Just wondering why Le Monde clearly refers to "arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF)" if that's not right.

That may come from one of the rules applicable only to the Tour de France, of course, as I have read it has a different regime.

Cycling Weekly also refers to CNOSF.

Or, as you suggest, is it an error in Le Monde and Cycling Weekly, to name only two of many?

The Chambre Arbitrale du Sport that is written in UCI rules is an affiliate to CNOSF.

 

[wirral]

Re: Re:

[quote="

The biggest reason CF and his team delaying is very simple to me. He is extending his career.

As soon as he is (if) banned for Salbutamol, Sky needs to fire him due to their own rules. If they don't, they'll smack their own face on what they've been preaching for the past 8 years or so. They will not take that PR hit, not even for Froome. And Froome knows he will not get the "system" and support in any other team that would make him GT winner again. And without GT wins, Chris Froome is frankly pretty worthless rider.

Certainly a possible scenario.

I think Sky might stick with Froome i.e. not sack him using the excuse that the process is still ongoing and thus the ban is not yet confirmed. And stick with that line until all legal avenues are exhausted, probably with CAS. That could take a very long time, beyond the Tour de France 2019, maybe after the 2019 season.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I think the original question was to find out by what rule it goes to the arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF), which you don't think it does.

Just wondering why Le Monde clearly refers to "la chambre arbitrale du Comité national olympique du sport français - arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF)" if that's not right.

It is called the "la chambre arbitrale du Comité national olympique du sport français - arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF)" because that it what it is. The case goes there because that is what the rules say. Specifically UCI rule 2.2.010. Which has been referred to multiple times already in the last 24 hours on this thread.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

I think the original question was to find out by what rule it goes to the arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF), which you don't think it does.

Just wondering why Le Monde clearly refers to "la chambre arbitrale du Comité national olympique du sport français - arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF)" if that's not right.

It is called the "la chambre arbitrale du Comité national olympique du sport français - arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport (CNOSF)" because that it what it is. The case goes there because that is what the rules say. Specifically UCI rule 2.2.010. Which has been referred to multiple times already in the last 24 hours on this thread.

Thank you. Clearly I had temporarily missd the point - which is that Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cédex 13) as in that regulation is also called (but in French) the arbitration chamber of the National Olympic Committee of French Sport

 

[Rollthedice]

He got away with it. Froome is the greatest rider in the history of the sport.

https://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/02-07-2018/clamoroso-caso-salbutamolo-froome-assolto-la-wada-non-sanzionabile-280279069272.shtml?cmpid=shortener_cbb64e1fio

 

[ontheroad]

Complete farce of a sport.

 

[Singer01]

*** hell. It will be impossible to keep up with this thread today. How about both sides agree not to be arsehole about it?

 

[Parker]

Here's what you have been waiting months for: http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/