Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

This is exactly what Lappartient should be preparing for right now. He represents the whole sport, and the whole sport is a laughing stock if Sky are allowed to string this out long enough for Froome to start the Giro or the Tour. They would be bringing the sport into (further) disrepute, quite apart from the ridiculous effect it would have on the dynamics of the race itself. In my view Lappartient needed to go much further in his statements the other day; be clear that the sport does have means to force them to put up or shut up on clearing Froome's name. This is already affecting other riders' season planning for no fault of their own; do Nibali/Dumoulin take advantage of Froome's absence to look at their own potential Double chances, or do their throw all their eggs in the Tour basket to try to beat a weary-from-Giro Froome? It might feel like the depth of winter but Tirreno-Adriatico is only six weeks away.

Exclusion from races
2.2.010 bis
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.
...
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.

Then why didn't the Vuelta stop Valverde from riding in 2009? The Giro/Tour Contador in 2011? Why was any Convicted doper allowed to start a grand tour?

Submissive posture.

If you got dat ... dee boys heere on dee Clinique don't care too much aboutdeedope.

 

[Netserk]

In 2011 (post mid February), Contador wasn't a convicted doper, he was cleared and considered non-guilty.

 

[webvan]

Common sense indeed and if the AAFbhad been public from the beginning he would likely have suspended himself. Doing it in December would have looked silly but they can still use that as some kind of "bargaining chip" to not get the full ban, i.e. Didn't race so it can start on 20/09.

As for Lappartient putting more pressure, now done since he said he would support the organizers if they decided to refuse entry.

 

[Alexandre B.]

Those 27/28% have to be explained.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

In a survey of 1,006 French citizens, of whom 353 were 'cycling fans'

- 87 percent of all French polled say they want Froome to be suspended
- 93 percent of those identifying as 'cycling fans' want Froome to be suspended
- 58% and 68% of those two groups, respectively, say Froome should not be allowed to ride Tour de France
under any circumstances

Source: RTL

I've yet to see a set of statistics presented on this forum that could stump and/or diminish ... nay ... negate ... nay emasculate ... the scientific scrutiny of Messrs Sam Hocking and Merck Index ........ until now ......until now, mes amis. :surprised:

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

Cédric Vasseur (Cofiidis) interviewed in Cyclism Actu

« Je n'imagine pas Chris Froome prendre part à une compétition. Pour le bien du cyclisme, pour le bien de l'équipe Sky et pour le bien de Froome. Parce qu'un Chris Froome au départ du Tour de France dans cette situation, ça va être invivable pour lui»

" I can't imagine Chris Froome taking part in any competition. For the good of cycling, for the sake of the Sky team, and for the sake of Froome himself. Because if Froome is at the start of the Tour de France in this situation, it will be unlivable for him"

This is the problem with the carry on regardless strategy. It may end badly for Froome even if he escapes a ban

 

[Merckx index]

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.

I now see there's a third problem with this. To refresh, 1) Froome's refusal to admit a possible mistake implies longer than six months; and 2) an appeal to CAS could potentially result in a longer ban.

Now here's 3): According to the WADA Code (Article 10.11), suspensions begin at the time of the final hearing. So even if a six month suspension were handed down some time in the next few months before the Giro, and even if neither side appealed the decision to CAS, it would not begin with the positive test, but rather from the date of the hearing. There are exceptions to this rule, but they would not seem to apply to Froome. E.g., one exception is if there was a delay in having the hearing, and the delay was not the fault of the athlete. This rule, which presumably is to protect the athlete from spending a long period of time inactive, is apparently why Contador's suspension was back-dated. The delay of course was caused by the long CAS appeal process, but since Contador was not the one who appealed, it wasn't his fault.

Another exception to the rule that doesn't apply to Froome is if the athlete is provisionally suspended. In this case, the period of suspension counts toward the total time of the final decision, and this may make it possible to back-date it. Thus Ulissi was almost continuously suspended from the time of his positive in the 2014 Giro to his hearing in January 2015, so his nine month ban included all that time, ending in March 2015.

Petacchi was suspended for two months following his positive in the 2007 Giro. His CAS decision in May 2008 back-dated his year long suspension to November of the previous year, with the two months provisional suspension counting. In this case, though, I think the back-dating was allowed because Petacchi, like Contador, was not responsible for the delay. He was cleared by his national federation two months after his positive, and the process continued only because of an appeal by WADA.

 

[Escarabajo]

I see the difference, Ok, so if the delay is on Froome he could get longer ban?? as opposed to what everyone is thinking that his time off will count as a suspension time. Even if he is not officially suspended. That's strange. Would that be the first time that wee see that?

Regardless of anything he would probably lose his Vuelta title.

Froome is being very silly. As opposed to the Armstrong days, there are very few people that believe in him. His reputation is already tarnished. If he is going to lose the Vuelta title anyway we look at it he should just accept the ban as soon as possible otherwise it could mean the end of his career.

 

[veji11]

Froome is tainted beyond possible participation to the tour de France anyway. All other races are different, but the Tour de France had the Armstrong Trauma and ASO has a business to run. My bet is that Froome will never again race at the tour de France as a potential winner. Sure he might be back at some point as an old guy who can get some restults, but not as a potential winner.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

In a survey of 1,006 French citizens, of whom 353 were 'cycling fans'

- 87 percent of all French polled say they want Froome to be suspended
- 93 percent of those identifying as 'cycling fans' want Froome to be suspended
- 58% and 68% of those two groups, respectively, say Froome should not be allowed to ride Tour de France
under any circumstances

Source: RTL

With respect, they would have got that result if they had asked the same question before his AAF became known :lol:

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

In a survey of 1,006 French citizens, of whom 353 were 'cycling fans'

- 87 percent of all French polled say they want Froome to be suspended
- 93 percent of those identifying as 'cycling fans' want Froome to be suspended
- 58% and 68% of those two groups, respectively, say Froome should not be allowed to ride Tour de France
under any circumstances

Source: RTL

With respect, they would have got that result if they had asked the same question before his AAF became known :lol:

Fairly much correlates with Froome’s SPOTY polling. He’s not a well liked person regardless of country

 

[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.

I now see there's a third problem with this. To refresh, 1) Froome's refusal to admit a possible mistake implies longer than six months; and 2) an appeal to CAS could potentially result in a longer ban.

Now here's 3): According to the WADA Code (Article 10.11), suspensions begin at the time of the final hearing. So even if a six month suspension were handed down some time in the next few months before the Giro, and even if neither side appealed the decision to CAS, it would not begin with the positive test, but rather from the date of the hearing. There are exceptions to this rule, but they would not seem to apply to Froome. E.g., one exception is if there was a delay in having the hearing, and the delay was not the fault of the athlete. This rule, which presumably is to protect the athlete from spending a long period of time inactive, is apparently why Contador's suspension was back-dated. The delay of course was caused by the long CAS appeal process, but since Contador was not the one who appealed, it wasn't his fault.

Another exception to the rule that doesn't apply to Froome is if the athlete is provisionally suspended. In this case, the period of suspension counts toward the total time of the final decision, and this may make it possible to back-date it. Thus Ulissi was almost continuously suspended from the time of his positive in the 2014 Giro to his hearing in January 2015, so his nine month ban included all that time, ending in March 2015.

Petacchi was suspended for two months following his positive in the 2007 Giro. His CAS decision in May 2008 back-dated his year long suspension to November of the previous year, with the two months provisional suspension counting. In this case, though, I think the back-dating was allowed because Petacchi, like Contador, was not responsible for the delay. He was cleared by his national federation two months after his positive, and the process continued only because of an appeal by WADA.

An important thing to remember here - perhaps the most important - is that we have no idea what is going on. Just because you are unaware of something happening, do not assume it hasn't happened. We have no idea what Froome's people and CADF have agreed to and said to each other. All we know is that he isn't doing any races.

Also if the ban can't be backdated why are people worried about him riding the Giro/Tour and having any result stripped at a later date?

And Ulissi was banned for nine months for basically the same offence. If taken from the time of his last race, that would end before the Tour. He has every right to defend himself but it isn't really justice if the time he has to remain inactive to do so for longer than the ban is likely to be.

 

[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.

I now see there's a third problem with this. To refresh, 1) Froome's refusal to admit a possible mistake implies longer than six months; and 2) an appeal to CAS could potentially result in a longer ban.

Now here's 3): According to the WADA Code (Article 10.11), suspensions begin at the time of the final hearing. So even if a six month suspension were handed down some time in the next few months before the Giro, and even if neither side appealed the decision to CAS, it would not begin with the positive test, but rather from the date of the hearing. There are exceptions to this rule, but they would not seem to apply to Froome. E.g., one exception is if there was a delay in having the hearing, and the delay was not the fault of the athlete. This rule, which presumably is to protect the athlete from spending a long period of time inactive, is apparently why Contador's suspension was back-dated. The delay of course was caused by the long CAS appeal process, but since Contador was not the one who appealed, it wasn't his fault.

Another exception to the rule that doesn't apply to Froome is if the athlete is provisionally suspended. In this case, the period of suspension counts toward the total time of the final decision, and this may make it possible to back-date it. Thus Ulissi was almost continuously suspended from the time of his positive in the 2014 Giro to his hearing in January 2015, so his nine month ban included all that time, ending in March 2015.

Petacchi was suspended for two months following his positive in the 2007 Giro. His CAS decision in May 2008 back-dated his year long suspension to November of the previous year, with the two months provisional suspension counting. In this case, though, I think the back-dating was allowed because Petacchi, like Contador, was not responsible for the delay. He was cleared by his national federation two months after his positive, and the process continued only because of an appeal by WADA.

So Froome could ride and win all 3 GTs in 2018, get a six month ban in October 2018 then he's free to win all 3 GTs in 2019 as well?

And does he get to keep his 2017 Vuelta and Worlds bronze if the ban only starts from the hearing date?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

And does he get to keep his 2017 Vuelta and Worlds bronze if the ban only starts from the hearing date?

Vuelta no (as the test was from that event and therefore a DQ for that stage). World's yes.

Ulissi came second in a TT the day after his test. It's still on the record books. (He didn't finish that Giro, but I assume his GC result would have been scrapped).

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

And does he get to keep his 2017 Vuelta and Worlds bronze if the ban only starts from the hearing date?

Vuelta no (as the test was from that event and therefore a DQ for that stage). World's yes.

Ulissi came second in a TT the day after his test. It's still on the record books. (He didn't finish that Giro, but I assume his GC result would have been scrapped).

What a mess

And now even Froome's team mates are saying it needs sorting quickly

Which of course is not going to happen

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/poels-on-froome-it-is-best-for-everyone-to-get-clarity-quickly/

"I think that it is best for everyone to get clarity quickly so that we all know what will happen," Poels told NUsport. "Not only for us as teammates, but also for Chris himself. The other riders from the peloton also want to know where they stand, I understand that."

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

What a mess

And now even Froome's team mates are saying it needs sorting quickly

The law is fairly straightforward. Froome is allowed to keep cycling until a hearing and then any ban should start on the day of the result of that hearing (no backdated scrubbing of results). But many people don't like this proposition and that's what makes it a mess.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Froome is tainted beyond possible participation to the tour de France anyway. All other races are different, but the Tour de France had the Armstrong Trauma and ASO has a business to run. My bet is that Froome will never again race at the tour de France as a potential winner. Sure he might be back at some point as an old guy who can get some restults, but not as a potential winner.

You picked Ricky against Manny, right?

 

[slosada]

I wouldn't call the law straightforward when it allows for gray zones to be exploited like Sky is doing with the "reasonable delay".

If it was that clear we wouldn't be discussing when to start the suspension, how long the suspension, or what he gets to keep.

Granted, you cannot write rules for each specific case but, OTOH, you cannot take the sport to a limbo when one of the best riders, and potential winner has a confirmed positive doping test, but keeps active by delaying the process.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

What a mess

And now even Froome's team mates are saying it needs sorting quickly

The law is fairly straightforward. Froome is allowed to keep cycling until a hearing and then any ban should start on the day of the result of that hearing (no backdated scrubbing of results). But many people don't like this proposition and that's what makes it a mess.

Odd then that Lappertient is asking Team Sky to stop Froome racing if he can't get his eventual ban reduced by the length of time voluntarily not racing. Like I said, what a mess!

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

What a mess

And now even Froome's team mates are saying it needs sorting quickly

The law is fairly straightforward. Froome is allowed to keep cycling until a hearing and then any ban should start on the day of the result of that hearing (no backdated scrubbing of results). But many people don't like this proposition and that's what makes it a mess.

Odd then that Lappertient is asking Team Sky to stop Froome racing if he can't get his eventual ban reduced by the length of time voluntarily not racing. Like I said, what a mess!

It's usually people that cause a mess, not laws. And never forget that Lappartient is a career politician. His comments are for a particular audience.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What a mess

And now even Froome's team mates are saying it needs sorting quickly

The law is fairly straightforward. Froome is allowed to keep cycling until a hearing and then any ban should start on the day of the result of that hearing (no backdated scrubbing of results). But many people don't like this proposition and that's what makes it a mess.

Odd then that Lappertient is asking Team Sky to stop Froome racing if he can't get his eventual ban reduced by the length of time voluntarily not racing. Like I said, what a mess!

It's usually people that cause a mess, not laws. And never forget that Lappartient is a career politician. His comments are for a particular audience.

No, he’s is being a leader and expressing his opinion. He understands the rules and has articulated them but from a ethical stance he’d like Sky to suspend their rider. It’s very straight forward position for him to take. If this was Cookosn he’d be hiding away not saying a word other than “Sky should have their reputation reinstated”.

Let’s not take us back to the limp and weak president of the last four years.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

No, he’s is being a leader and expressing his opinion. He understands the rules and has articulated them but from a ethical stance he’d like Sky to suspend their rider. It’s very straight forward position for him to take. If this was Cookosn he’d be hiding away not saying a word other than “Sky should have their reputation reinstated”.

Let’s not take us back to the limp and weak president of the last four years.

He's also encouraging the Giro/Tour to exclude him which would go against the WADA code. (And remember this should all still be secret at this stage)

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

No, he’s is being a leader and expressing his opinion. He understands the rules and has articulated them but from a ethical stance he’d like Sky to suspend their rider. It’s very straight forward position for him to take. If this was Cookosn he’d be hiding away not saying a word other than “Sky should have their reputation reinstated”.

Let’s not take us back to the limp and weak president of the last four years.

He's also encouraging the Giro/Tour to exclude him which would go against the WADA code. (And remember this should all still be secret at this stage)

Yes, he just said that he will support them in case. Brailsford and Sky are for banning Froome too because they are already doing more than MPCC !

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

No, he’s is being a leader and expressing his opinion. He understands the rules and has articulated them but from a ethical stance he’d like Sky to suspend their rider. It’s very straight forward position for him to take. If this was Cookosn he’d be hiding away not saying a word other than “Sky should have their reputation reinstated”.

Let’s not take us back to the limp and weak president of the last four years.

He's also encouraging the Giro/Tour to exclude him which would go against the WADA code. (And remember this should all still be secret at this stage)

Absolutely, to protect the sport. If Froome and Sky want to game the system and drag this out as long as possible then the UCI has every right to encourage the races not to include the rider. It’s in Froome’s best interests to clear this matter up to clear himself or face the suspension. The ball is in Froome’s court.

 

[Poursuivant]

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.

I now see there's a third problem with this. To refresh, 1) Froome's refusal to admit a possible mistake implies longer than six months; and 2) an appeal to CAS could potentially result in a longer ban.

Now here's 3): According to the WADA Code (Article 10.11), suspensions begin at the time of the final hearing. So even if a six month suspension were handed down some time in the next few months before the Giro, and even if neither side appealed the decision to CAS, it would not begin with the positive test, but rather from the date of the hearing. There are exceptions to this rule, but they would not seem to apply to Froome. E.g., one exception is if there was a delay in having the hearing, and the delay was not the fault of the athlete. This rule, which presumably is to protect the athlete from spending a long period of time inactive, is apparently why Contador's suspension was back-dated. The delay of course was caused by the long CAS appeal process, but since Contador was not the one who appealed, it wasn't his fault.

Another exception to the rule that doesn't apply to Froome is if the athlete is provisionally suspended. In this case, the period of suspension counts toward the total time of the final decision, and this may make it possible to back-date it. Thus Ulissi was almost continuously suspended from the time of his positive in the 2014 Giro to his hearing in January 2015, so his nine month ban included all that time, ending in March 2015.

Petacchi was suspended for two months following his positive in the 2007 Giro. His CAS decision in May 2008 back-dated his year long suspension to November of the previous year, with the two months provisional suspension counting. In this case, though, I think the back-dating was allowed because Petacchi, like Contador, was not responsible for the delay. He was cleared by his national federation two months after his positive, and the process continued only because of an appeal by WADA.

An important thing to remember here - perhaps the most important - is that we have no idea what is going on. Just because you are unaware of something happening, do not assume it hasn't happened. We have no idea what Froome's people and CADF have agreed to and said to each other. All we know is that he isn't doing any races.

Also if the ban can't be backdated why are people worried about him riding the Giro/Tour and having any result stripped at a later date?

And Ulissi was banned for nine months for basically the same offence. If taken from the time of his last race, that would end before the Tour. He has every right to defend himself but it isn't really justice if the time he has to remain inactive to do so for longer than the ban is likely to be.

This is mad: so he can ride Giro-Tour, then get a hearing in August, get a ban, lose 2017 Vuelta, but keep every result after that including all 2018 results, because ban starts from August? If this is true, can Froome delay for majority of a season?