Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1280 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
wrinklyvet said:
hfer07 said:
I'm glad with the ASO stand on Froome- too late & controversial to be well understood, but certainly they have the right to prevent him from racing Le Tour, mostly because the UCI forced their hand to act in such way due to the long decision on his case. We simply cannot have in Pro-Cycling cases like Froome's to be dragged for months due to money & politics, putting races results in limbo, just because lawyers & sponsors have powers to maneuver doping cases to make the most of it in favor of their clients, as the situation fits in.......

Froome should have never been allowed to start Il Giro to begin with, Let alone Win it and now go to Le Tour with impunity ready to win it as well.
There is nothing more political than this ASO decision and those who distrust lawyers and money will be disappointed to note that again it will be beneficial to be a sports lawyer! I think the idea that lawyers manipulate the length or complexity of cases to feather their own nests is attractive and occasionally true, but do you have to be a lawyer to take a more dispassionate view and particularly that someone in Froome's position is entitled to do what it takes to achieve what seems best, within the rules?
Well, ASO is "entitled" to do what it takes to protect their race from another scandal-within the rules too-and they're simply exercising the right to prevent him from starting Le Tour, according to Article 29 below:

Article 29 (ASO)
(in compliance with UCI),
“ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in
– or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”
 
Re:

samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
No but his presence can be
hfer07 said:
[quote="wrinklyvet":2ymfdtor][quote="hfer07":2ymfdtor]I'm glad with the ASO stand on Froome- too late & controversial to be well understood, but certainly they have the right to prevent him from racing Le Tour, mostly because the UCI forced their hand to act in such way due to the long decision on his case. We simply cannot have in Pro-Cycling cases like Froome's to be dragged for months due to money & politics, putting races results in limbo, just because lawyers & sponsors have powers to maneuver doping cases to make the most of it in favor of their clients, as the situation fits in.......

Froome should have never been allowed to start Il Giro to begin with, Let alone Win it and now go to Le Tour with impunity ready to win it as well.
There is nothing more political than this ASO decision and those who distrust lawyers and money will be disappointed to note that again it will be beneficial to be a sports lawyer! I think the idea that lawyers manipulate the length or complexity of cases to feather their own nests is attractive and occasionally true, but do you have to be a lawyer to take a more dispassionate view and particularly that someone in Froome's position is entitled to do what it takes to achieve what seems best, within the rules?[/quote]

Well, ASO is "entitled" to do what it takes to protect their race from another scandal-within the rules too-and they're simply exercising the right to prevent him from starting Le Tour, according to Article 29 below:

Article 29 (ASO)
(in compliance with UCI),
“ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in
– or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”
[/quote]
 
Apr 16, 2017
212
3
2,035
Re:

samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
Theoretically, Froome will have the option to sue for damages if the outcome of the UCI proceedings should be that he is cleared of any wrong-doing. Nobody has ever claimed that the legal system is fair in every instance.

The more interesting question would be what if the UCI somehow reaches a decision such that Froome is found guilty of intentionally violating doping rules, and technically to have exceeded the threshold but this violation is found to be such that it should not be punished, and the UCI is instructed to rework its entire assessment of what constitutes doping, as the existing policy is found to be excessively arbitrary and lacking in scientific rigor.
 
JosephK said:
brownbobby said:
Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute :eek:
Or lauded for having the cojones to bring cycling out of the mud for a few weeks.
You think this drags cycling out of the mud?

Timed for maximum effect, this makes a far bigger laughing stock out of the sport with the wider public who take an interest every July than any doping case ever could.

I can think of several motivations behind this play; the image of cycling isn’t one of them.

In terms of public perception, It’s akin to trying to put out a small fire by pouring petrol on it.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
No but his presence can be
hfer07 said:
[quote="wrinklyvet":1qs1u226][quote="hfer07":1qs1u226]I'm glad with the ASO stand on Froome- too late & controversial to be well understood, but certainly they have the right to prevent him from racing Le Tour, mostly because the UCI forced their hand to act in such way due to the long decision on his case. We simply cannot have in Pro-Cycling cases like Froome's to be dragged for months due to money & politics, putting races results in limbo, just because lawyers & sponsors have powers to maneuver doping cases to make the most of it in favor of their clients, as the situation fits in.......

Froome should have never been allowed to start Il Giro to begin with, Let alone Win it and now go to Le Tour with impunity ready to win it as well.
There is nothing more political than this ASO decision and those who distrust lawyers and money will be disappointed to note that again it will be beneficial to be a sports lawyer! I think the idea that lawyers manipulate the length or complexity of cases to feather their own nests is attractive and occasionally true, but do you have to be a lawyer to take a more dispassionate view and particularly that someone in Froome's position is entitled to do what it takes to achieve what seems best, within the rules?
Well, ASO is "entitled" to do what it takes to protect their race from another scandal-within the rules too-and they're simply exercising the right to prevent him from starting Le Tour, according to Article 29 below:

Article 29 (ASO)
(in compliance with UCI),
“ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in
– or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”
[/quote][/quote]

Then Froome is riding. ASO can't say we are blocking you because we don't like your presence. They would better off saying we are blocking you for having a gangly riding style.
 
hfer07 said:
wrinklyvet said:
hfer07 said:
I'm glad with the ASO stand on Froome- too late & controversial to be well understood, but certainly they have the right to prevent him from racing Le Tour, mostly because the UCI forced their hand to act in such way due to the long decision on his case. We simply cannot have in Pro-Cycling cases like Froome's to be dragged for months due to money & politics, putting races results in limbo, just because lawyers & sponsors have powers to maneuver doping cases to make the most of it in favor of their clients, as the situation fits in.......

Froome should have never been allowed to start Il Giro to begin with, Let alone Win it and now go to Le Tour with impunity ready to win it as well.
There is nothing more political than this ASO decision and those who distrust lawyers and money will be disappointed to note that again it will be beneficial to be a sports lawyer! I think the idea that lawyers manipulate the length or complexity of cases to feather their own nests is attractive and occasionally true, but do you have to be a lawyer to take a more dispassionate view and particularly that someone in Froome's position is entitled to do what it takes to achieve what seems best, within the rules?
Well, ASO is "entitled" to do what it takes to protect their race from another scandal-within the rules too-and they're simply exercising the right to prevent him from starting Le Tour, according to Article 29 below:

Article 29 (ASO)
(in compliance with UCI),
“ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in
– or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”
I don't dispute any of that but as I am sure you know I was making a different point. However, whether ASO doing what they are entitled to try to do will actually improve the situation is a moot point. Some will think so. I don't happen to do so. Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Moving on from that, those who don't like watching Froome because he is an ugly rider, is from Sky, is allegedly doping (or whatever) greatly amuse me when they say that because of what ASO has done they will watch the Tour again (and otherwise would not have done). Even accepting their view as expressed like that is genuine, do they see nothing in the sprints, the breakaways and the question of whether they will stick, the tactics and even the wonderful scenery and photography? Is it all about the yellow? Ultimately perhaps it is in many ways, but there's so much more than that.
 
Apr 16, 2017
212
3
2,035
brownbobby said:
JosephK said:
brownbobby said:
Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute :eek:
Or lauded for having the cojones to bring cycling out of the mud for a few weeks.
You think this drags cycling out of the mud?

Timed for maximum effect, this makes a far bigger laughing stock out of the sport with the wider public who take an interest every July than any doping case ever could.

I can think of several motivations behind this play; the image of cycling isn’t one of them.

In terms of public perception, It’s akin to trying to put out a small fire by pouring petrol on it.
Again, how does this bring the ASO or cycling in general into disrepute? Saying it over and over does not make it so.
 
Re: Re:

Summoned said:
samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
Theoretically, Froome will have the option to sue for damages if the outcome of the UCI proceedings should be that he is cleared of any wrong-doing. Nobody has ever claimed that the legal system is fair in every instance.

The more interesting question would be what if the UCI somehow reaches a decision such that Froome is found guilty of intentionally violating doping rules, and technically to have exceeded the threshold but this violation is found to be such that it should not be punished, and the UCI is instructed to rework its entire assessment of what constitutes doping, as the existing policy is found to be excessively arbitrary and lacking in scientific rigor.
Thing is if ASO base the damage on what might happen if Froome is guilty, Froomes answer to that is simply any of his rivals could test positive without him being there and damage the image of ASO. The issue of damage is due to the leak, not because Froome decides to ride an ASO event.
 
brownbobby said:
Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute :eek:
In the now infamous Valverde judgement CAS made the point that the UCI were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds by trying to ban the Spaniard than Valverde was. So, yeah, I'd expect Sky to make this point. But, with French CAS not publishing judgements, we'll likely never know if they do.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Then Froome is riding. ASO can't say we are blocking you because we don't like your presence. They would better off saying we are blocking you for having a gangly riding style.
Like it or not it is in their rules; they can exclude someone who's presence would damage the image of the race. Up to the court to decide if that is the case here.
 
Summoned said:
brownbobby said:
JosephK said:
brownbobby said:
Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute :eek:
Or lauded for having the cojones to bring cycling out of the mud for a few weeks.
You think this drags cycling out of the mud?

Timed for maximum effect, this makes a far bigger laughing stock out of the sport with the wider public who take an interest every July than any doping case ever could.

I can think of several motivations behind this play; the image of cycling isn’t one of them.

In terms of public perception, It’s akin to trying to put out a small fire by pouring petrol on it.
Again, how does this bring the ASO or cycling in general into disrepute? Saying it over and over does not make it so.
Was about to try and explain as you seem to struggle with what I thought was blindingly obvious, but @FMK just covered it neatly. I guess it depends on wether or not you think Cycling's problems begin and end with individuals doping cases...
 
Apr 16, 2017
212
3
2,035
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Summoned said:
samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
Theoretically, Froome will have the option to sue for damages if the outcome of the UCI proceedings should be that he is cleared of any wrong-doing. Nobody has ever claimed that the legal system is fair in every instance.

The more interesting question would be what if the UCI somehow reaches a decision such that Froome is found guilty of intentionally violating doping rules, and technically to have exceeded the threshold but this violation is found to be such that it should not be punished, and the UCI is instructed to rework its entire assessment of what constitutes doping, as the existing policy is found to be excessively arbitrary and lacking in scientific rigor.
Thing is if ASO base the damage on what might happen if Froome is guilty, Froomes answer to that is simply any of his rivals could test positive without him being there and damage the image of ASO. The issue of damage is due to the leak, not because Froome decides to ride an ASO event.
Perhaps pointing to other riders makes sense from Froome's perspective, but there is a substantive distinction to be drawn between him and other riders, which is that the ASO knows that Froome is currently in the midst of proceedings for a possible doping violation. So from the ASO perspective, the fact that the leak happened makes them more liable. Because any rider could test positive at any time, that is not the basis for any action on their part other than instituting testing. Because there is an active proceeding, the ASO may feel that greater action is required to ensure that they are not faced with a greater harm in the absence of their acting.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Finally our bots have a reason to be here in such numbers.
scramble!
Are you finding it uncomfortable to read views that you do not share? You make that blindingly obvious.

Extra offence is caused by alluding to the Battle of Britain. Take a wider view of the world!
 
Apr 16, 2017
212
3
2,035
brownbobby said:
Summoned said:
brownbobby said:
JosephK said:
brownbobby said:
Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute :eek:
Or lauded for having the cojones to bring cycling out of the mud for a few weeks.
You think this drags cycling out of the mud?

Timed for maximum effect, this makes a far bigger laughing stock out of the sport with the wider public who take an interest every July than any doping case ever could.

I can think of several motivations behind this play; the image of cycling isn’t one of them.

In terms of public perception, It’s akin to trying to put out a small fire by pouring petrol on it.
Again, how does this bring the ASO or cycling in general into disrepute? Saying it over and over does not make it so.
Was about to try and explain as you seem to struggle with what I thought was blindingly obvious, but @FMK just covered it neatly. I guess it depends on wether or not you think Cycling's problems begin and end with individuals doping cases...
I understand that the UCI lost that case, but Valverde was banned after all, correct? And he was banned for doping? So on the merits of that case, yes, the UCI was judged to have proceeded incorrectly, but in the larger picture they were correct that Valverde was doping and was going to be penalized for that? So how does that place the UCI in disrepute in the larger picture? 'Cause I completely fail to see that.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Finally our bots have a reason to be here in such numbers.
scramble!
Are you finding it uncomfortable to read views that you do not share? You make that blindingly obvious.

Extra offence is caused by alluding to the Battle of Britain. Take a wider view of the world!
Take a wider view of the world! :lol:

Really, then in that case Sky, the UK based cycling team are doing exactly what the rest of the world does to win GTs. Dope and cheat!

:lol:
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
wrinklyvet said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Finally our bots have a reason to be here in such numbers.
scramble!
/quote]
Are you finding it uncomfortable to read views that you do not share? You make that blindingly obvious.

Extra offence is caused by alluding to the Battle of Britain. Take a wider view of the world!
Take a wider view of the world! :lol:

Really, then in that case Sky, the UK based cycling team are doing exactly what the rest of the world does to win GTs. Dope and cheat!

:lol:
You can take that view (and I know you do)!

At least you did not appropriate an image of brave men who fought and died to preserve freedoms without which you may not have been posting here in English or probably any other language.

What a cheeky and insensitive way to seek to denigrate those who have the temerity to express an opinion.
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
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.
Hmmmm, this move by the ASO is entirely not surprising because, well, because ASO!

It will be a very interesting week to see how this all plays out. I remember the Boonen and Astana cases and they were very different, but still quite the circus. One seemed more related to bad boy/party image while the other was doping madness, so neither apply fully here. Opinions were definitely heavy on both ends of the spectrum though.

I do expect cycling's doping history will be a front and centre argument of the ASO, but whatevs.
 
Re: Re:

Ripper said:
wrinklyvet said:
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.
Hmmmm, this move by the ASO is entirely not surprising because, well, because ASO!

It will be a very interesting week to see how this all plays out. I remember the Boonen and Astana cases and they were very different, but still quite the circus. One seemed more related to bad boy/party image while the other was doping madness, so neither apply fully here. Opinions were definitely heavy on both ends of the spectrum though.

I do expect cycling's doping history will be a front and centre argument of the ASO, but whatevs.
It was bound to happen, even just for show. ASO showing strength and doing it at such a late stage doesn’t give Sky a lot of time to mobilise.
 
I'm going to say this once.

In the Valverde case CAS relied on the principles of 'nulla poena sine culpa' (no punishment without guilt) + double jeopardy (you can't be punished twice for the same crime).

In simple English, should Froome win his salbutamol case, it would be wrong for CAS to have punished an innocent man. But equally CAS would be wrong to have punished him if he loses - the UCI will punish him then and you can only be punished once for an offence.

These are basic legal principles, the same for all cases. They don't change. How ASO propose getting past them will be interesting to see. Though we'll probably never be told.
 
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.
Good post Hog. You knew something was about to drop! :eek:
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Summoned said:
samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
Theoretically, Froome will have the option to sue for damages if the outcome of the UCI proceedings should be that he is cleared of any wrong-doing. Nobody has ever claimed that the legal system is fair in every instance.

The more interesting question would be what if the UCI somehow reaches a decision such that Froome is found guilty of intentionally violating doping rules, and technically to have exceeded the threshold but this violation is found to be such that it should not be punished, and the UCI is instructed to rework its entire assessment of what constitutes doping, as the existing policy is found to be excessively arbitrary and lacking in scientific rigor.
Thing is if ASO base the damage on what might happen if Froome is guilty, Froomes answer to that is simply any of his rivals could test positive without him being there and damage the image of ASO. The issue of damage is due to the leak, not because Froome decides to ride an ASO event.
So according to your argument, then La Vuelta is ready to sue Froome for damages to the race's image because of his AFF findings during the race, correct?
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
I'm going to say this once.

In the Valverde case CAS relied on the principles of 'nulla poena sine culpa' (no punishment without guilt) + double jeopardy (you can't be punished twice for the same crime).

In simple English, should Froome win his salbutamol case, it would be wrong for CAS to have punished an innocent man. But equally CAS would be wrong to have punished him if he loses - the UCI will punish him then and you can only be punished once for an offence.

These are basic legal principles, the same for all cases. They don't change. How ASO propose getting past them will be interesting to see. Though we'll probably never be told.
Froome already has a confirmed traffic violation. Valverde, not. The only question is why the violation. The cases are different as was Boonen who’d already been assured by ASO he would be allowed to ride.

Here time is against Froome. Little time and well played by ASO to leave it to the last minute.
 
Re: Re:

hfer07 said:
samhocking said:
Summoned said:
samhocking said:
'Liable' is the key word. Can Froome be liable for damage before being innocent or guilty?
Theoretically, Froome will have the option to sue for damages if the outcome of the UCI proceedings should be that he is cleared of any wrong-doing. Nobody has ever claimed that the legal system is fair in every instance.

The more interesting question would be what if the UCI somehow reaches a decision such that Froome is found guilty of intentionally violating doping rules, and technically to have exceeded the threshold but this violation is found to be such that it should not be punished, and the UCI is instructed to rework its entire assessment of what constitutes doping, as the existing policy is found to be excessively arbitrary and lacking in scientific rigor.
Thing is if ASO base the damage on what might happen if Froome is guilty, Froomes answer to that is simply any of his rivals could test positive without him being there and damage the image of ASO. The issue of damage is due to the leak, not because Froome decides to ride an ASO event.
So according to your argument, then La Vuelta is ready to sue Froome for damages to the race's image because of his AFF findings during the race, correct?
now that is a smart idea.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS