Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TourOfSardinia]

Parker meekly suggested

Just give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected.

You do realise that's the deal those giving testimony got in the LANCE case (6 month off-season).
Lance himself got LIFE.

 

[Parker]

Re:

Parker meekly suggested

Just give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected.

You do realise that's the deal those giving testimony got in the LANCE case (6 month off-season).
Lance himself got LIFE.

I do realise that. I didn't agree with it.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-fromme-over-doping-allegations-uci-president

But the Guardian understands Team Sky will still enter Froome for the Giro d’Italia and this year’s Tour de France as planned unless any anti-doping rule violation is brought against the 32-year-old before then.

Things must be bad when Sky don't even wheel out a PR guy to tell us this news.
SDB gone awol?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

If he fails to prove his innocence at LADS, a process that is already taking months, he'll be handed suspension in the form of "an acceptance of consequences". He will not accept it because, remember, he's innocent. The case goes then to the Anti doping Tribunal, another month? He is again convicted or maybe exonerated. He, or the UCI or WADA will go to CAS. Here we are talking about many months. During all this time he races and maybe even wins just to be possibly stripped of all his titles. How do you think all those riders who finished second will feel? What about the organizers? How is that a proper and ethical behavior I really don't understand.

With all the pressure being applied, I feel fairly certain that the Tribunal's decision will be made before the Giro. And I think it's quite likely it will go against Froome, so he will be suspended. At that point, cycling as a whole won't really care how long a likely appeal to CAS will take, since Froome won't be riding until that decision is made, some time after the season is over.

There's a simple solution to all of this.

Just give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected.

That might not be unreasonable if Froome had admitted to possibly making a mistake and inhaling too much, though he'd still be getting off light compared to others. But since he himself has decided on the high risk strategy of claiming he didn't inhale too much, he can't be given such a light sentence if he can't provide strong evidence for an alternative explanation. Now maybe he will pull a rabbit out of his hat (or out of his snake) with this renal impairment theory, but if it doesn't fly, and it sure looks unlikely to do so, he's going to have to be given a much longer sanction. When you won't admit making a mistake, and you can't prove an innocent alternative, you have to be judged guilty of intentionally doping.

 

[Rollthedice]

give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected

What about two years ban? From what I'm reading a lot of people are implying this is what he'll get if the "kidney malfunction" or whatever defense he'll cone up with will fail.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

There's a simple solution to all of this.

Just give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected.

That might not be unreasonable if Froome had admitted to possibly making a mistake and inhaling too much, though he'd still be getting off light compared to others. But since he himself has decided on the high risk strategy of claiming he didn't inhale too much, he can't be given such a light sentence if he can't provide strong evidence for an alternative explanation. Now maybe he will pull a rabbit out of his hat (or out of his snake) with this renal impairment theory, but if it doesn't fly, and it sure looks unlikely to do so, he's going to have to be given a much longer sanction. When you won't admit making a mistake, and you can't prove an innocent alternative, you have to be judged guilty of intentionally doping.

We have no idea what he has or hasn't said. There's no harm in looking for other explanations and then saying "well maybe I did make a mistake after all".

Six months would be suitable for everyone. Any longer and Froome misses the Giro then the UCI faces legal consequences if he eventually wins at CAS.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Every team has a code of conduct and ethics. The most advanced, zero tolerance, marginal ultra gains team in the world Sky should have one unless it's lost together with Freeman's laptop. They received the AAF and so did that lady from BC who didn't like the leak of Froome's salbutamol abuse. The first step Brailsford should've done, after receiving the confirmation of the B sample was to suspend the rider until the affair is over. A nice press statement, saying they believe Froome is innocent would've been the normal way of dealing with this. Nobody leaked Ulissi's positive, upon notification of the AAF, Lampre, based on their code of ethics suspended the rider. That's how the cycling world found out about Ulissi's salbutamol case and that is how even the dirtiest teams operate. But Brailsfraud thinks he invented cycling and all the brits including one white Kenyan can do whatever they like, something that they pretty much did during Crookson's time at UCI. Basically Sky are telling the whole cycling community f*** y** all. Now this is something that makes a lot of people really angry, especially the French and the Italians.

Froome hasn't done a single race for Sky since they knew the results of the tests. So nothing would have been any different whether they had suspended him or not.

If he actually starts a race then maybe that's a time to complain about it. Until then it makes no difference.

Except for the World TTT, World ITT & signed onto the Giro for €1.5m

He was told about the test after the World TTT, the World ITT he wasn't riding for Sky and the Giro hasn't happened yet.

He was told before the ITT and still rode. Statement came from Sky.

In a statement Team Sky said Froome received the notification of the adverse analytical finding from the UCI on 20 September, prior to the individual time trial event at the world championships.

that´s what he said. rode the TTT with Sky, then was told, then rode the TT for Great Britain.

 

[Urbi27]

Re:

It's not about him actually not racing because there are no races or whatever his schedule is for preparation of Giro. Some don't want to understand.

For all we know Froome wants to start the Giro with or without a final decision in his case because nobody can suspend him apart from Sky or himself. It's not me to tell you how disrespectful and unsportsmanlike this is in relation with the organizers, the fellow riders with whom he'll fight for the win and the cycling movement.

If he fails to prove his innocence at LADS, a process that is already taking months, he'll be handed suspension in the form of "an acceptance of consequences". He will not accept it because, remember, he's innocent. The case goes then to the Anti doping Tribunal, another month? He is again convicted or maybe exonerated. He, or the UCI or WADA will go to CAS. Here we are talking about many months. During all this time he races and maybe even wins just to be possibly stripped of all his titles. How do you think all those riders who finished second will feel? What about the organizers? How is that a proper and ethical behavior I really don't understand.

I really understand that nobody believe in Froome's version, but he is 33 and he cannot waiting for a verdict if he is really innocent. Try to look at this situation from his side.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

We have no idea what he has or hasn't said.

He said he broke no rules. That means he didn’t accidentally inhale too much. He very definitely has claimed that he didn’t ingest more than the allowed amount.

There's no harm in looking for other explanations and then saying "well maybe I did make a mistake after all".

Except that it’s difficult to make a mistake of that magnitude and yet initially (i.e., closest in time and strongest in memory to the event) be so certain he didn’t make one. An “admission” of a mistake at this time looks too much like an insincere attempt to avoid a longer sanction.

Six months would be suitable for everyone. Any longer and Froome misses the Giro then the UCI faces legal consequences if he eventually wins at CAS.

I really understand that nobody believe in Froome's version, but he is 33 and he cannot waiting for a verdict if he is really innocent. Try to look at this situation from his side.

I understand the reasoning. If he wins at the Tribunal, and WADA/UCI appeal, I would fully support his riding, just as I supported Contador’s riding the Giro/TDF in 2011. But if Froome loses, the small probability that he would win an appeal at CAS has to be balanced against the ambiguity of having a leading contender whose results probably won’t count.

I don’t see that UCI faces any legal consequences. Rules are rules. Froome is taking advantage of a rule to stay active despite an AAF. If he loses at the Tribunal, UCI takes an advantage of a rule to have him out of racing while he appeals.

And most important, since CAS basically starts all over, even if Froome received a back-dated six month suspension now, and appealed it, CAS could lengthen it, so his results in the Giro/Tour could still be stripped. Just because Froome appeals an already relatively favorable decision doesn't mean CAS can't make it worse. Indeed, if Froome were given a six month suspension and didn't appeal it, WADA/UCI likely would, just for that reason.

IOW, there is no scenario such as you describe in which Froome can ride the Giro/Tour with certainty that his results will count, unless one can be sure that no one appeals. And if the back-dated decision comes down in March, a decision by either side on whether or not to appeal might not even be made until after the Giro begins.

 

[nayr497]

Kidney failure?! My god.

I personally cannot imagine them going after a rider of this stature unless they were positive they had him.

 

[brownbobby]

Kidney failure?! My god.

I personally cannot imagine them going after a rider of this stature unless they were positive they had him.

Maybe they wouldn't have, but from the moment this was leaked they had no choice...

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

I understand the reasoning. If he wins at the Tribunal, and WADA/UCI appeal, I would fully support his riding, just as I supported Contador’s riding the Giro/TDF in 2011. But if Froome loses, the small probability that he would win an appeal at CAS has to be balanced against the ambiguity of having a leading contender whose results probably won’t count.

No they would count, because he would have already served his six month ban

I don’t see that UCI faces any legal consequences. Rules are rules. Froome is taking advantage of a rule to stay active despite an AAF. If he loses at the Tribunal, UCI takes an advantage of a rule to have him out of racing while he appeals.

Maybe, but I wouldn't want to bet millions on it though

And most important, since CAS basically starts all over, even if Froome received a back-dated six month suspension now, and appealed it, CAS could lengthen it, so his results in the Giro/Tour could still be stripped. Just because Froome appeals an already relatively favorable decision doesn't mean CAS can't make it worse. Indeed, if Froome were given a six month suspension and didn't appeal it, WADA/UCI likely would, just for that reason.

They'd be unlikely to extend it if it was Froome appealling. And this whole process would need UCI/WADA to agree not to appeal - and WADA have agreed to this length of ban for salbutamol in other sports. However, if it gets extended then just start the extra ban from the date of the appeal decision rather than pretending some races didn't happen. They should have done that with Contador.

The whole process would be about getting Froome to serve a ban and get that bit out of the way then taking the whole thing to CAS to decide whether he actually deserved it where they can take as long as they please over it.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

There's a simple solution to all of this.

Just give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected.

That might not be unreasonable if Froome had admitted to possibly making a mistake and inhaling too much, though he'd still be getting off light compared to others. But since he himself has decided on the high risk strategy of claiming he didn't inhale too much, he can't be given such a light sentence if he can't provide strong evidence for an alternative explanation. Now maybe he will pull a rabbit out of his hat (or out of his snake) with this renal impairment theory, but if it doesn't fly, and it sure looks unlikely to do so, he's going to have to be given a much longer sanction. When you won't admit making a mistake, and you can't prove an innocent alternative, you have to be judged guilty of intentionally doping.

We have no idea what he has or hasn't said. There's no harm in looking for other explanations and then saying "well maybe I did make a mistake after all".

Six months would be suitable for everyone. Any longer and Froome misses the Giro then the UCI faces legal consequences if he eventually wins at CAS.

Really?!

6 months might be reasonable is Froome made an innocent mistake and/or had a genuine medical problem

But if Froome was taking salbutamol by an illegal method trying to stay below the 1,000 limit and somehow messed up then he deserves 2 years

Simples

 

[TourOfSardinia]

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

as a Sky fan, I dont want Froome to ride the Giro under investigation, risking of doing like Alberto did in 2011. the backfire from fans, twitter, clinic, journos, media, would be hard.
I hope for the minimum ban (6-9 months) and the Tour or the Vuelta

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

and yesterday he said that : Lappartient added that Froome had not been given any special treatment by being allowed to continue to compete while the case is ongoing, saying that forcing Froome to suspend himself would go against their own regulations. Although, he added that it would have made things easier if Team Sky were part of the MPCC, which requires teams to suspend any riders under investigation.

"It is important to uphold the rights of the rider," Lappartient said. "There is no special treatment for him, even if some riders claim that. Salbutamol is one of the drugs allowed in a limited dose. An immediate suspension would conflict with the rules in force

if he isn’t happy with the rules , change the rules ..................

Good post.

Lappartient seems a bit 'nerveux' with his role in this particular case. Under the current UCI/WADA rules, he has an obligation to protect the rider's rights ... no more or no less. Don't equivocate on this fundamental principle. Bardet ... blah, blah, blah ... the French public ... blah, drama, blah.

Every team has a code of conduct and ethics. The most advanced, zero tolerance, marginal ultra gains team in the world Sky should have one unless it's lost together with Freeman's laptop. They received the AAF and so did that lady from BC who didn't like the leak of Froome's salbutamol abuse. The first step Brailsford should've done, after receiving the confirmation of the B sample was to suspend the rider until the affair is over. A nice press statement, saying they believe Froome is innocent would've been the normal way of dealing with this. Nobody leaked Ulissi's positive, upon notification of the AAF, Lampre, based on their code of ethics suspended the rider. That's how the cycling world found out about Ulissi's salbutamol case and that is how even the dirtiest teams operate. But Brailsfraud thinks he invented cycling and all the brits including one white Kenyan can do whatever they like, something that they pretty much did during Crookson's time at UCI. Basically Sky are telling the whole cycling community f*** y** all. Now this is something that makes a lot of people really angry, especially the French and the Italians.

Sounds like thinly veiled extortion to me.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

as a Sky fan, I dont want Froome to ride the Giro under investigation, risking of doing like Alberto did in 2011. the backfire from fans, twitter, clinic, journos, media, would be hard.
I hope for the minimum ban (6-9 months) and the Tour or the Vuelta

The threat of Froome possibly returning to racing motivates people to get on with making a decision. If Froome himself drags his heels they should open a full case on him and provisionally suspend him. There's no reason why this can't be sorted out long before the Giro.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

It's not about him actually not racing because there are no races or whatever his schedule is for preparation of Giro. Some don't want to understand.

For all we know Froome wants to start the Giro with or without a final decision in his case because nobody can suspend him apart from Sky or himself. It's not me to tell you how disrespectful and unsportsmanlike this is in relation with the organizers, the fellow riders with whom he'll fight for the win and the cycling movement.

If he fails to prove his innocence at LADS, a process that is already taking months, he'll be handed suspension in the form of "an acceptance of consequences". He will not accept it because, remember, he's innocent. The case goes then to the Anti doping Tribunal, another month? He is again convicted or maybe exonerated. He, or the UCI or WADA will go to CAS. Here we are talking about many months. During all this time he races and maybe even wins just to be possibly stripped of all his titles. How do you think all those riders who finished second will feel? What about the organizers? How is that a proper and ethical behavior I really don't understand.

Breathe ...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

as a Sky fan, I dont want Froome to ride the Giro under investigation, risking of doing like Alberto did in 2011. the backfire from fans, twitter, clinic, journos, media, would be hard.
I hope for the minimum ban (6-9 months) and the Tour or the Vuelta

The threat of Froome possibly returning to racing motivates people to get on with making a decision. If Froome himself drags his heels they should open a full case on him and provisionally suspend him. There's no reason why this can't be sorted out long before the Giro.

But Froome's best (only?) tactic is dragging things out and hoping the UCI caves

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

as a Sky fan, I dont want Froome to ride the Giro under investigation, risking of doing like Alberto did in 2011. the backfire from fans, twitter, clinic, journos, media, would be hard.
I hope for the minimum ban (6-9 months) and the Tour or the Vuelta

The threat of Froome possibly returning to racing motivates people to get on with making a decision. If Froome himself drags his heels they should open a full case on him and provisionally suspend him. There's no reason why this can't be sorted out long before the Giro.

But Froome's best (only?) tactic is dragging things out and hoping the UCI caves

Go the Tinkoff route; threaten that you’ll take it to the European Court and bankrupt the UCI.

 

[GraftPunk]

How do you think all those riders who finished second will feel? What about the organizers?

Not to mention the sponsors lost publicity/podium time. There are a lot of losers in that scenario that can create ripples.

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

There bound by the UCI's and WADA's rules which means Froome is free to ride as Sky have a WT licence and Froome is not suspended and free to ride until the case is resolved. Any attempt to stop him riding risks civil action.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The latest indiscreto of Beppe Conte on RadioCorsa would be that
the organisers of the 3 GT should meet 3 & 4 February
at the UCI Cyclocross Valkenburg 2018 and decide
conclusively if Froome rides any GT while he is under investigation.

We can but hope.

There bound by the UCI's and WADA's rules which means Froome is free to ride as Sky have a WT licence and Froome is not suspended and free to ride until the case is resolved. Any attempt to stop him riding risks civil action.

And which civil tort would be infringed? You really do make this up as you go along don’t you?

If anything the the Giro organization could sue Froome/Sky for the false statements made to induce RCS into contract for failing to notify them of the AAF.

 

[Poursuivant]

Re:

give him a six month ban backdated to the last time he raced and then he can get back to racing on March 20. Then he can appeal the whole thing to CAS and get the definitive judgement. Then everyone can just get on with it knowing future races won't be effected

What about two years ban? From what I'm reading a lot of people are implying this is what he'll get if the "kidney malfunction" or whatever defense he'll cone up with will fail.

Why would he get a 2 year ban when Pettachi never admitted wrongdoing and got a 9 month ban?

 

[movingtarget]

If Froome was smart he would just retire.............for health reasons. Quintana and Bardet fall to their knees with relief, the drug testers have a sudden onset of bug eyes, Brailsford is smiling, the French shrug and normal business resumes...........