Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I can see where yours coming from on the reputation but there seems to be some suggestion that he needs to miss the tour for his own protection from those beastly French. That's just nonsense, don't believe everything you read in the media.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

We did know. His positive just proves what we knew.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I can see where yours coming from on the reputation but there seems to be some suggestion that he needs to miss the tour for his own protection from those beastly French. That's just nonsense, don't believe everything you read in the media.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

We did know. His positive just proves what we knew.

Good for you

But I was talking about spectators on the side of the road in France. May be you were one of them. Maybe you were stood next to me.

I don't know

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

Going to be awkward come july - Froome puffing his way up a big climb, leaving the rest in the dust.

I get what your saying. Just not so sure about it.

Le Tour is over 6 months away. If the case is still not closed, and/or the whole thing has resemblance of the kreuziger proceedings then i wouldn't put it past Froome to risk a martyrdom for asthma at Le Tour.

As for ASO exclusion, if that happens i belive it wont be above board (official).

And perhaps Teamsky is running low on leverage at that time to counter such action.

Edit: i guess my belief is, that unless ASO can be sure Froome isnt going to walk, then can they risk exclusion of the most winning rider since indurain. With the risk of him being cleared?

Froome has the ressources the fight this tooth and nails for a long time, before making any potential deals.

I don't think Aso have the power to ban anyone do they?

Behind the scenes deals maybe, but officially only UCI/Wada have this power I would think?

Plus, I think you overestimate the anger and danger posed by 'the French. Some spectators booed him last year because they were sure he was doping. Some will boo him this year because they are sure he is doping. Nothing much has changed in this regard.

It's still only sport and he's the pantomime villain.

I think they do:

https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

[/quote]

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger

 

[DanielSong39]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

I can see where yours coming from on the reputation but there seems to be some suggestion that he needs to miss the tour for his own protection from those beastly French. That's just nonsense, don't believe everything you read in the media.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Oh, and just to repeat what others have said. He loses one grand tour. He's only ever failed a test at one GT. No legal means by which he could possibly lose another. You don't just offer to give GT results away!

Contador lost two Grand Tours and Armstrong lost seven so I suppose they make up the law as they go along. Then again Pereiro did not lose a Grand Tour after getting busted so you never know.

You offer to give GT results away if you can gain more from doing so. If Froome comes back at a somewhat reduced level and wins a Giro or Vuelta he will be shown 10 times the love that he received during his dominant run.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Going to be awkward come july - Froome puffing his way up a big climb, leaving the rest in the dust.

I get what your saying. Just not so sure about it.

Le Tour is over 6 months away. If the case is still not closed, and/or the whole thing has resemblance of the kreuziger proceedings then i wouldn't put it past Froome to risk a martyrdom for asthma at Le Tour.

As for ASO exclusion, if that happens i belive it wont be above board (official).

And perhaps Teamsky is running low on leverage at that time to counter such action.

Edit: i guess my belief is, that unless ASO can be sure Froome isnt going to walk, then can they risk exclusion of the most winning rider since indurain. With the risk of him being cleared?

Froome has the ressources the fight this tooth and nails for a long time, before making any potential deals.

I don't think Aso have the power to ban anyone do they?

Behind the scenes deals maybe, but officially only UCI/Wada have this power I would think?

Plus, I think you overestimate the anger and danger posed by 'the French. Some spectators booed him last year because they were sure he was doping. Some will boo him this year because they are sure he is doping. Nothing much has changed in this regard.

It's still only sport and he's the pantomime villain.

I think they do:

https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger [/quote]

No, sorry. Was only quoting you on the ASO stuff. Just tagged other comments on about dangers of him riding in France in response to several previous posts, not from you.

My French is not good enough to correct or confirm what you're saying, but if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. I would have thought that if a rider is not suspended by the UCI, and unless specifically booted out of an event for misdemeanours in that event (i.e. Sagan this year) then I'd be very surprised if race organisers had this power. Some kind of restriction of trade in employment law I would think?

But, if I'm wrong then I'm happy to learn and be corrected.

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

I think they do:

https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger [/quote]

Your french is good and your translation is correct. Yes, they can.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I think they do:

https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger

Your french is good and your translation is correct. Yes, they can.[/quote]

Thanks. Every days a school day!

Is there any precedent for them ever doing this. I.e banning a specific rider. I can find examples of teams being excluded, but not single cyclists?

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

Going to be awkward come july - Froome puffing his way up a big climb, leaving the rest in the dust.

I get what your saying. Just not so sure about it.

Le Tour is over 6 months away. If the case is still not closed, and/or the whole thing has resemblance of the kreuziger proceedings then i wouldn't put it past Froome to risk a martyrdom for asthma at Le Tour.

As for ASO exclusion, if that happens i belive it wont be above board (official).

And perhaps Teamsky is running low on leverage at that time to counter such action.

Edit: i guess my belief is, that unless ASO can be sure Froome isnt going to walk, then can they risk exclusion of the most winning rider since indurain. With the risk of him being cleared?

Froome has the ressources the fight this tooth and nails for a long time, before making any potential deals.

I don't think Aso have the power to ban anyone do they?

Behind the scenes deals maybe, but officially only UCI/Wada have this power I would think?

Plus, I think you overestimate the anger and danger posed by 'the French. Some spectators booed him last year because they were sure he was doping. Some will boo him this year because they are sure he is doping. Nothing much has changed in this regard.

It's still only sport and he's the pantomime villain.

I think they do:

https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger

No, sorry. Was only quoting you on the ASO stuff. Just tagged other comments on about dangers of him riding in France in response to several previous posts, not from you.

My French is not good enough to correct or confirm what you're saying, but if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. I would have thought that if a rider is not suspended by the UCI, and unless specifically booted out of an event for misdemeanours in that event (i.e. Sagan this year) then I'd be very surprised if race organisers had this power. Some kind of restriction of trade in employment law I would think?

But, if I'm wrong then I'm happy to learn and be corrected.[/quote]

I think it's natural for an event organiser to have this kind of provision in their regulations.

No rider is employed, or performing a work task on behalf of ASO in my objective.

But this could be the test for how strong such provisons hold up legally should ASO go down this route, and SKY/Froome challenging it. I find that a highly unlikely scenario though.

As for correct interpretation of the text word to word, i guess a french poster can help us out.

A different interpretaion is of course, the legal one and (non)precedents in the dirty history of TDF.

 

[mrhender]

ok, the quotes are going all wrong in last few posts.

Lets try and preview onwards.

edit: thanks btw Poupou

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Going to be awkward come july - Froome puffing his way up a big climb, leaving the rest in the dust.

I get what your saying. Just not so sure about it.

Le Tour is over 6 months away. If the case is still not closed, and/or the whole thing has resemblance of the kreuziger proceedings then i wouldn't put it past Froome to risk a martyrdom for asthma at Le Tour.

As for ASO exclusion, if that happens i belive it wont be above board (official).


And perhaps Teamsky is running low on leverage at that time to counter such action.

Edit: i guess my belief is, that unless ASO can be sure Froome isnt going to walk, then can they risk exclusion of the most winning rider since indurain. With the risk of him being cleared?

Froome has the ressources the fight this tooth and nails for a long time, before making any potential deals.

I don't think Aso have the power to ban anyone do they?

Behind the scenes deals maybe, but officially only UCI/Wada have this power I would think?

Plus, I think you overestimate the anger and danger posed by 'the French. Some spectators booed him last year because they were sure he was doping. Some will boo him this year because they are sure he is doping. Nothing much has changed in this regard.

It's still only sport and he's the pantomime villain.

I think they do:

https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger

No, sorry. Was only quoting you on the ASO stuff. Just tagged other comments on about dangers of him riding in France in response to several previous posts, not from you.

My French is not good enough to correct or confirm what you're saying, but if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. I would have thought that if a rider is not suspended by the UCI, and unless specifically booted out of an event for misdemeanours in that event (i.e. Sagan this year) then I'd be very surprised if race organisers had this power. Some kind of restriction of trade in employment law I would think?

But, if I'm wrong then I'm happy to learn and be corrected.

I think it's natural for an event organiser to have this kind of provision in their regulations.

No rider is employed, or performing a work task on behalf of ASO in my objective.

But this could be the test for how strong such provisons hold up legally should ASO go down this route, and SKY/Froome challenging it. I find that a highly unlikely scenario though.

As for correct interpretation of the text word to word, i guess a french poster can help us out.

A different interpretaion is of course, the legal one and (non)precedents in the dirty history of TDF.[/quote]

Yes, it would present an interesting case if ASO did try to apply it to exclude Froome. My very loose translation is something along the lines of they reserve the right to exclude participants to protect the image and reputation of ASO. Just because they state it in their rules, doesn't mean it's not open to legal challenge.
If Froome somehow managed to beat this charge, or it was still going through due process, you can imagine a whole legal minefield being opened up if he wanted to participate but ASO tried to block it.

 

[mrhender]

Would be interesting indeed. But hard to imagine, as all parties would probably be better served finding alternative routes.

It is cycling afterall, only ones imagination is the limit. so who knows.

I think Froome will seek to drag this on as long as possible. In two years he might be done anyway, so why not try and weather the storm with a storm of lawyers and experts expressing his inner weird metabolism and what not.

Cycling has seen it all before, they will forgive and forget. (unless he wins 7 or more haha)

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

I can see where yours coming from on the reputation but there seems to be some suggestion that he needs to miss the tour for his own protection from those beastly French. That's just nonsense, don't believe everything you read in the media.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Oh, and just to repeat what others have said. He loses one grand tour. He's only ever failed a test at one GT. No legal means by which he could possibly lose another. You don't just offer to give GT results away!

Contador lost two Grand Tours and Armstrong lost seven so I suppose they make up the law as they go along. Then again Pereiro did not lose a Grand Tour after getting busted so you never know.

You offer to give GT results away if you can gain more from doing so. If Froome comes back at a somewhat reduced level and wins a Giro or Vuelta he will be shown 10 times the love that he received during his dominant run.

Lance Armstrong lost 7 GT's because of overwhelming evidence, including an eventual confession, that he was doping for everyone of those 7 GT's.

Contador lost 2 GT's because they backdated the ban to the when the failed test occurred, the case took so long to be settled that by the time it was he'd won 2 GT's, both of which were forfeited.

Sorry, I try to be polite, but you are completely wrong here. You don't get to choose which results you would like to forfeit.

Any sanction will only kick in from the date of the event (i.e. failed test) which triggers the sanction. If for example, this case drags on for several months, and whilst it rumbles on Froome goes on to win the Giro and the Tour, but is then found guilty and given a 12 month ban, this would be backdated and he would indeed end up losing 3 GT's. But he doesn't get to choose which 3!

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

He won't be there in july, this is a given. Aso can't afford to have him on the race, hearing endless boos along the road, being thrown piss at and basically putting all the other riders in danger because there is the potential for "fans" to throw harder stuff at him or even assault him. Just a god awful mess ASO will want to avoid at all costs.

I think that depends how much Froom, Sky and the lawyers can muddy the waters.
Make the case super complicated, long dragging and about his human right to protect his health.

The french might throw piss, but the reaction so far hasnt been fury. No one is surprised.

That's because the French people are still mourning the passing of (RIP) Johnny Hallyday. They're not ready to mourn the passing of the Tour de France just yet. What I mean by that is that the July "fans", the ones to worry about, aren't too active at this time of the year (although the number of comments in l'Equipe is huge right now). I don't see Froome at Le Tour...not safe. Forget about the team presentation. On the road, all it takes is one very upset spectator.

I get what your saying. Just not so sure about it.

Le Tour is over 6 months away. If the case is still not closed, and/or the whole thing has resemblance of the kreuziger proceedings then i wouldn't put it past Froome to risk a martyrdom for asthma at Le Tour.

As for ASO exclusion, if that happens i belive it wont be above board (official).

And perhaps Teamsky is running low on leverage at that time to counter such action.

Edit: i guess my belief is, that unless ASO can be sure Froome isnt going to walk, then can they risk exclusion of the most winning rider since indurain. With the risk of him being cleared?

Froome has the ressources the fight this tooth and nails for a long time, before making any potential deals.

I don't think Aso have the power to ban anyone do they?

Behind the scenes deals maybe, but officially only UCI/Wada have this power I would think?

Plus, I think you overestimate the anger and danger posed by 'the French. Some spectators booed him last year because they were sure he was doping. Some will boo him this year because they are sure he is doping. Nothing much has changed in this regard.

It's still only sport and he's the pantomime villain.

ASO have rescinded invitations to Div 1 teams before. See Astana 2008...

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

I can see where yours coming from on the reputation but there seems to be some suggestion that he needs to miss the tour for his own protection from those beastly French. That's just nonsense, don't believe everything you read in the media.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Oh, and just to repeat what others have said. He loses one grand tour. He's only ever failed a test at one GT. No legal means by which he could possibly lose another. You don't just offer to give GT results away!

Contador lost two Grand Tours and Armstrong lost seven so I suppose they make up the law as they go along. Then again Pereiro did not lose a Grand Tour after getting busted so you never know.

You offer to give GT results away if you can gain more from doing so. If Froome comes back at a somewhat reduced level and wins a Giro or Vuelta he will be shown 10 times the love that he received during his dominant run.

Lance Armstrong lost 7 GT's because of overwhelming evidence, including an eventual confession, that he was doping for everyone of those 7 GT's.

Contador lost 2 GT's because they backdated the ban to the when the failed test occurred, the case took so long to be settled that by the time it was he'd won 2 GT's, both of which were forfeited.

Sorry, I try to be polite, but you are completely wrong here. You don't get to choose which results you would like to forfeit.

Any sanction will only kick in from the date of the event (i.e. failed test) which triggers the sanction. If for example, this case drags on for several months, and whilst it rumbles on Froome goes on to win the Giro and the Tour, but is then found guilty and given a 12 month ban, this would be backdated and he would indeed end up losing 3 GT's. But he doesn't get to choose which 3!

This. Froome can't just say, "Oh take away my results back to 2016 so I can return right away". You lose the results in races you have been shown to have cheated/broken the rules and results between your infraction and the decision, IF the ban is backdated (= always to the original time of infraction!).

 

[Tonton]

Translation: ASO reserves the right to refuse the participation or exclude any team or one of its members whose presence would negatively affect ASO's or the event's image...

 

[pastronef]

ASO reserves the right to refuse the participation or exclude any team or one of its members whose presence would negatively affect ASO's or the event's image...

and ASO can also reserve its right in private. a phone call to DaveB welcoming him and Dawg to the Vuelta and telling him to use July to train and prepare. no need to officially keep him out

 

[buckle]

Re: Froome Talk Only - Ross Tucker

http://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/...career_in_the_balance_after_failed_drugs_test

 

[Tonton]

ASO reserves the right to refuse the participation or exclude any team or one of its members whose presence would negatively affect ASO's or the event's image...

and ASO can also reserve its right in private. a phone call to DaveB welcoming him and Dawg to the Vuelta and telling him to use July to train and prepare. no need to officially keep him out

I agree that it will in all likelihood be resolved behind-the-scene. Like everything else.

 

[Norks74]

Re:

You have to look at the bigger picture too. Losing a case is bad but the bigger goal is to protect the client's public brand. Contador's brand and public image improved because he was actually stripped of two Grand Tours. Sharapova received mostly sympathy for her ban and was welcomed back to the sport with open arms. Their long-term legacy is secure and they will continue to be loved by fans and generate tons of income through their branding.

For this reason I think Froome will accept a retroactive ban that includes the loss of two Grand Tours. Anything less than that will damage his legacy in my opinion.

DanielSong. Really with regards to Sharapova? My impression is she is a pariah now. She may be rich but she has lost all credibility as far as I am aware. The same will apply to Froome from now onwards in my opinion.

 

[ngent41]

[quote="poupou":1lkfzndf][quote="mrhender":1lkfzndf]
I think they do:

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://netstorage.lequipe.fr/ASO/cyclisme/le-tour/2017/reglement/TDF17-Reglement-INTERIEUR_FR-UK-BD.pdf</span>

ARTICLE 28|RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation
de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de
l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis
alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport
cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté
de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de –
l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres,
dont la présence serait de nature à porter
atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou
de l’épreuve.

My french is a bit rusty, but i read from that, that they can. So correct me if wrong.

And not sure why you are quoting me, saying I am overplaying the anger and danger [/quote]

Your french is good and your translation is correct. Yes, they can.[/quote]

Thanks. Every days a school day!

Is there any precedent for them ever doing this. I.e banning a specific rider. I can find examples of teams being excluded, but not single cyclists?[/quote]

I dunno about examples for the ASO but RCS invited CCC to the giro on the condition that davide rebellin would not ride it. So organizers can and do exclude riders

 

[Barbapapa]

Re:

You have to look at the bigger picture too. Losing a case is bad but the bigger goal is to protect the client's public brand. Contador's brand and public image improved because he was actually stripped of two Grand Tours. Sharapova received mostly sympathy for her ban and was welcomed back to the sport with open arms. Their long-term legacy is secure and they will continue to be loved by fans and generate tons of income through their branding.

For this reason I think Froome will accept a retroactive ban that includes the loss of two Grand Tours. Anything less than that will damage his legacy in my opinion.

Fair point! There are so many more examples. For instance, just look what wonders it did for that Armstrong fellow! He is invited back to this years Tour of Flanders, like the hero he became!

 

[sittingbison]

Hubris

defiance of the gods...an excess of ambition, pride and self confidence ultimately causing the transgressor's ruin

This is the problem for Dawg.

It's not about the puff on an inhaler (or 40)

It's the end result of all the "marginal gains", the pseudo science, the power metre, the jingoism, the protection, the fawning adulation, triumphalism, lies and deceipt, Leinders, Dodger, Wiggos joint, Counds tweets, the jiffy bag, Planche, Aix3, tail winds on Ventoux, 480Watts, Dave's manifesto, the knighthoods, the Veulta napkin, the anatomic jock strap, the shoes on the wrong way, bilharzia, and the 2011 Veulta "transformation"

 

[sittingbison]

I tend to go with the contaminated blood bag, taken OOC with a shitload of Sal on board for fat loss. Transfused after the stage 17 collapse, along with plenty of oral or injected Sal in the usual brekky cocktail. Combined they made him glow 6 hours later.

Exactly what Jaske tweeted - they forgot about the Sal in the bag.

Marginal can be a double edged sword

 

[Tonton]

Too many small gains multiply the possibility to get busted.

For the TdF topic, the French see this as a national treasure, they were served another Armstrong dish and knew it. Now that the smoking gun is out, rotten tomatoes will fly. There was that say in the '30s (IIRC) that July is when the government can take a vacation: Le Tour is everything.

Froome will be treated very "badly" if he shows up. Good news for Geraint: he'll get his shot.

Since the news came out, it's a free for all "I'm doing the Tour". People in the know...know.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I dunno about examples for the ASO but RCS invited CCC to the giro on the condition that davide rebellin would not ride it. So organizers can and do exclude riders

ASO did this with Valverde in 2009, when he was barred from Italy, he wanted to ride the Tour as a stage hunter for two weeks then withdraw on stage 16 which passed through Italy, ASO weren't happy with that arrangement and told Caisse d'Epargne they would be excluded if they selected Valverde. Although a Spanish team, the sponsor at the time was French and they acquiesced, instead entering the race without any credible GC threat, and keeping everybody of value back for the Vuelta, which, of course, Valverde won.