Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Wiggo's Package]

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 !

As I suspect you're alluding to Lappartient was being sarcastic when he suggested Sky and Brailsfraud are more ethical than the MPCC teams. Sarcasm from a UCI president! Now that is an upgrade :lol:

Lappartient may be a political operator but it's not difficult to figure out where he stands on the Froome thing. Like a good senisble politician he's reflecting the consensus view of serious cycling fans. And he's got enough guts to ignore the outliers. Very wise

 

[Merckx index]

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.

The two sides are unlikely to have reached any kind of deal, because if they had, they surely could and would want to put a stop to all the public expressions of gloom and doom if the case isn’t resolved soon. All it would take is an announcement from Froome's team that the case would definitely be resolved before the Giro.

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?

Because of the rule I pointed out about who's at fault for the delay. If Froome rides the double, it will most likely be because he either a) wins the CADF hearing, or b) takes the case directly to CAS (there's also a possibility that he delays the CADF hearing till after the Giro/Tour, but this seems quite unlikely to me; even if "reasonable length of time" is not specified, no one would consider this length of time reasonable in this case). If he wins the CADF hearing, he's free to ride, but of course WADA/UCI may very well appeal the decision. If they do, and win, the suspension could be back-dated for the same reason it was for Contador, viz., it wouldn’t be Froome’s fault that the process took so long. If Froome takes the decision to CAS, it’s basically the same situation. He’s not really responsible for the delay in this case, because he’s not appealing an unfavorable decision, he's pursuing the case in the manner he believes gives him the best chance of winning.

This is how I understand the rules would apply. YMMV, of course.

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.

I agree, which is why it would be back-dated in both of the situations I just mentioned.

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

I hadn’t thought about this, but yes, if the suspension is not back-dated, then Froome would presumably keep the Worlds medals.

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).

Petacchi won five stages in the 2007 Giro. He tested positive after the third win, but he lost all five. I don’t see how Ulissi could keep any results from that Giro.

[Lappartient is] 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).

You and fmk are far too savvy to believe the superficial explanation of his behavior that both of you are touting. What he’s trying to do is pressure Froome into having the hearing before the Giro. Because if Froome does take the case directly to CAS, which he’s perfectly entitled to do, that’s when the real mess begins, assuming Froome loses. Because no matter how the suspension is timed—Froome’s 2018 results are stripped, or they stand—it will look very bad.

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.

Yes, he could get it reduced, as I explained upthread. If Froome had suspended himself upon notification of the positive, he would now have about four months’ credit towards any eventual suspension handed down. This would also increase the likelihood of back-dating, because a) if he were suspended, he would be trying very hard to get the case resolved as soon as possible; and b) the period of voluntary suspension is in effect a back-dated suspension, and at that point it makes the most sense to add any further suspension directly to it. Again, the Contador case exemplifies both of these points.

 

[Parker]

Re:

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.

The two sides are unlikely to have reached any kind of deal, because if they had, they surely could and would want to put a stop to all the public expressions of gloom and doom if the case isn’t resolved soon. All it would take is an announcement from Froome's team that the case would definitely be resolved before the Giro.

I don't think they have come to a deal. But they may have agreed to a timetable moving forward and assurances about (non-)participation.

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).

Petacchi won five stages in the 2007 Giro. He tested positive after the third win, but he lost all five. I don’t see how Ulissi could keep any results from that Giro.

Doping codes change. Back in Petacchi's day it was a banned drug which required a TUE. Now it is a specified substance. I haven't read the Ulissi decision, but his results remain on all records sites.

[Lappartient is] 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).

You and fmk are far too savvy to believe the superficial explanation of his behavior that both of you are touting. What he’s trying to do is pressure Froome into having the hearing before the Giro. Because if Froome does take the case directly to CAS, which he’s perfectly entitled to do, that’s when the real mess begins, assuming Froome loses. Because no matter how the suspension is timed—Froome’s 2018 results are stripped, or they stand—it will look very bad.

Neither side is going to give up leverage. Froome isn't going to publicly suspend himself, particularly as this whole affair got leaked - most likely by someone at UCI. He has every right under the law to ride and Lappartient knows it. I would suggest that Froome cares a lot less about his image than Lappartient.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

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

Yeah, also the poll has a kind of leading-question bias, and goes so far as to describe Froome as an "English" rider. Not "Kenyan", and not just "British", but Froome is now fully "English".

Bottom line, 7 of 10 'cycling fans' in France want Froome out of all of the Grand Tours this year, Giro, Tour, and Vuelta. And as for the Tour, of course that would make a Bardet victory more likely. The narrative is to get rid of foreign 'invaders' like Armstrong and Froome who keep 'stealing' the national race.The fact that Lance is going around Europe being inflammatory in the media, that doesn't help Froome either.

Bardet and Vasseur said to the effect that they "can't see how Froome can ride" under untenable claim / unbearable hostility. Whereas, Moncourt went so far as to imply something bad may happen to Froome if he shows up at the Tour de France. Nationalism = mob action, regardless of whether Froome is procedurally guilty? Who knows what that is supposed to mean ...

Ahhh ... now we're getting somewhere in this and one or two other threads. It's not about the dope. Hubris or any other of the SDSs? ... often just a smokescreen used by haters to cover up their true motivation. It's all about ...

 

[webvan]

Just to clarify, if Froome gets a suspension, he loses all his results between the positive test and the actual ban, regardless of how long and/or backdated it is. That came up in the comments section of CN and someone pulled out the exact WADA rule that was very clear about that.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Just to clarify, if Froome gets a suspension, he loses all his results between the positive test and the actual ban, regardless of how long and/or backdated it is. That came up in the comments section of CN and someone pulled out the exact WADA rule that was very clear about that.

Someone will have to point me to that section in the Code, because I’m not seeing it. Article 10.11 says: “the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility”. As I said before, there are exceptions which allow for back-dating to the time of the positive, and I think they would be in force for most likely scenarios involving Froome, but nowhere do I see a rule that says all results following the positive must be lost. In fact, even in the discussion of the exceptions, the language is that the ban "may" begin at a time earlier than the hearing, not that it has to.

Furthermore, there is a comment to this Article that emphasizes that in the absence of the exceptions, the period of ineligibility is not to begin sooner than the final decision:

[Comment to Article 10.11: Article 10.11 makes clear that delays not attributable to the Athlete, timely admission by the Athlete and Provisional Suspension are the only justifications for starting the period of Ineligibility earlier than the date of the final hearing decision.]

Usually an athlete is suspended from the time of the positive, and remains so until the hearing, and if he's found guilty, a ban imposed at that time will of course be continuous with the period of suspension. But in the case of a specified substance, where the athlete isn't necessarily suspended from the time of the positive, there would have to be a specific rule requiring back-dating, and I don't see such a rule anywhere in the WADA Code.

 

[70kmph]

10.8 Disqualification of Results in Competitions
Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission
of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results
in the Competition which produced the positive Sample
under Article 9, all other competitive results of the
Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was
collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition),
or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through
the commencement of any Provisional Suspension
or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires
otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting
Consequences inc

 

[Merckx index]

10.8 Disqualification of Results in Competitions
Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission
of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results
in the Competition which produced the positive Sample
under Article 9, all other competitive results of the
Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was
collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition),
or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through
the commencement of any Provisional Suspension
or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires
otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting
Consequences inc

I think the key words here are "unless fairness requires otherwise". If ineligibility begins at the date of the final decision, then fairness implies that you can't tack on an additional period of suspension to what's already been determined. E.g., if a year after the positive sample, a rider received a two year ban, he couldn't be banned for two years going forward plus the one year before the hearing (though in effect that did seem to happen to Mosquera). My interpretation is that usually there won't be a conflict, because the exceptions to 10.11 usually allow back-dating, but in the cases where they don't, I think the fairness rule means that results following the positive are not disqualified.

If my interpretation isn't correct, then I have no idea how to reconcile 10.8 and 10.11. I note also this from the WADA guidelines:

Any period of ineligibility begins to run:

1. on the date you accept a provisional suspension or accept the sanction proposed, or
2. in contested cases, on the date a decision is rendered after a hearing

Here is some information on how USADA prosecutes cases:

How long after an Adverse Analytical Finding report by the laboratory does the "B" sample opening and analysis occur?

The “B” sample opening and analysis typically occur within 10 working days after the Adverse Analytical Finding report by the laboratory.

How long after the Adverse Analytical Finding before the Anti-Doping Review Board meets?

The Anti-Doping Review Board generally meets within three weeks after a “B” sample analysis confirms an Adverse Analytical Finding.

How long after the Anti-Doping Review Board's recommendation will the hearing take place?

The AAA Supplementary Procedures require that the requested hearing takes place within three months of the appointment of the arbitrator(s).

https://www.usada.org/resources/faq/#IFtest

With regard to UK Anti-doping:

provided that if the Athlete or other Person wishes to exercise his/her right to a hearing, he/she must submit a written request for such a hearing so that it is received by UKAD as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 days of the Athlete's or other Person's receipt of the Notice of Charge. The request must also state how the Athlete or other Person responds to the charge in the Notice of Charge and must explain (in summary form) the basis for such response. In the event no such response is received by that deadline, the athlete or other Person will be deemed to have admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s) charged

https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/uploads/related-documents/Final_2015_UK_Anti_Doping_Rules_November_2014.PDF

 

[webvan]

With 10.8 all results will be lost in case of a ban, no question about that. Now for backdating or not there is certainly more flexibility. Too bad he didn't do the right thing and quietly suspend himself. Didn't even have to be public. Will probably only matter for the Vuelta and the World's the way things are going.

 

[Robert5091]

I expect that Froome's lawyers will come out with the "investigation is tainted" excuse because of the leak to the media, and since all the other samples tested at the Vuelta were negative, the fault is with the testing. Doc produces "documents" to prove no extra medication, and case dismissed! (possible Froome "donation" to African Cycling Federation on top)

 

[TourOfSardinia]

101 days until the Giro
and
counting

 

[webvan]

For Whom the Bell Tolls ;-)

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

For Whom the Bell Tolls ;-)

Jesus, it's like an episode of Catchphrase 'round here. "Say what you see!"

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

For Froome the Bell Tolls ;-)

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

For Froome the Bell Tolls ;-)

Make us climb on the on the hill in the early day
Constant watts on my stem

 

[aphronesis]

no need to rework the line on wounds and pride.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

I expect that Froome's lawyers will come out with the "investigation is tainted" excuse because of the leak to the media, and since all the other samples tested at the Vuelta were negative, the fault is with the testing. Doc produces "documents" to prove no extra medication, and case dismissed! (possible Froome "donation" to African Cycling Federation on top)

At this moment Froome is a bad position because everyone is tired of silly excuses!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I expect that Froome's lawyers will come out with the "investigation is tainted" excuse because of the leak to the media, and since all the other samples tested at the Vuelta were negative, the fault is with the testing. Doc produces "documents" to prove no extra medication, and case dismissed! (possible Froome "donation" to African Cycling Federation on top)

At this moment Froome is a bad position because everyone is tired of silly excuses!

In the given situation is probably worse than a straight up positive. Froome will have to come out with the most absurd reasoning and even if he gets off everyone is going to be mighty pissed off. He is terrible when interviewed, he’ll fall apart. Expect to see him pickup from his 2011 form at the Tour of Poland

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

I expect that Froome's lawyers will come out with the "investigation is tainted" excuse because of the leak to the media, and since all the other samples tested at the Vuelta were negative, the fault is with the testing. Doc produces "documents" to prove no extra medication, and case dismissed! (possible Froome "donation" to African Cycling Federation on top)

At this moment Froome is a bad position because everyone is tired of silly excuses!

In the given situation is probably worse than a straight up positive. Froome will have to come out with the most absurd reasoning and even if he gets off everyone is going to be mighty pissed off. He is terrible when interviewed, he’ll fall apart. Expect to see him pickup from his 2011 form at the Tour of Poland

... which means ... faux rage, turn on the giro, grab me a beer, grazie.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I expect that Froome's lawyers will come out with the "investigation is tainted" excuse because of the leak to the media, and since all the other samples tested at the Vuelta were negative, the fault is with the testing. Doc produces "documents" to prove no extra medication, and case dismissed! (possible Froome "donation" to African Cycling Federation on top)

At this moment Froome is a bad position because everyone is tired of silly excuses!

In the given situation is probably worse than a straight up positive. Froome will have to come out with the most absurd reasoning and even if he gets off everyone is going to be mighty pissed off. He is terrible when interviewed, he’ll fall apart. Expect to see him pickup from his 2011 form at the Tour of Poland

... which means ... faux rage, turn on the giro, grab me a beer, grazie.

I think even Kirby might have an issue, contrapasso.

 

[Merckx index]

Nibs joins the chorus of Froome critics, suggests that Froome might want to consider sitting out the season till the issue is resolved:

“I’ve seen in the past with athletes that it’s better not to race because if you race and the ban arrives, then you lose everything, all the results and suspension. But it’s a decision for the team and the rider.

“Froome faces the decision. I would advise him as a friend, even if we are not that friendly, to make the best decision for this sport. For the fans and the current movement in cycling. He knows. He knows the facts and the process.”

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/vincenzo-nibali-froome-whats-right-cycling-366882#0rEaaIhyEcJXTCwY.99

Some clarification on when the ban or period of ineligibility begins comes from this WADA document:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/LEGAL_code_appendix.pdf

10.8 Commencement of Ineligibility Period

[Comment: Currently, many Anti-Doping Organizations start the two-year period of Ineligibility at the time a hearing decision is rendered. Those Anti-Doping Organizations also frequently invalidate results retroactively to the date a positive Sample was collected. Other Anti-Doping Organizations simply start the two-year suspension on the date the positive Sample was collected. The OMADC [Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code], as clarified by its Explanatory Document, does not mandate either approach. The approach provided in the Code gives Athletes a strong disincentive to drag out the hearing process while they compete in the interim. It also encourages them to voluntarily accept Provisional Suspensions pending a hearing. On the other hand, the body imposing the sanction can start the sanction running before the date the hearing decision is reached so that an Athlete is not penalized by delays in the Doping Control process which are not his or her fault, for example, inordinate delay by the laboratory in reporting a positive test or delays in scheduling the hearing by the Anti-Doping Organization.]

So the choice set up is between beginning the ban at the time of the positive sample, or beginning the ban at the time of decision, with the preceding time from sample collection added on (as was done with Mosquera, e.g.). As long as the ban one way or another begins with sample collection, the athlete will have no incentive to drag out the proceedings, and as long as the ADA can decide when to begin the ban, nor will the athlete be unfairly victimized if the process drags on for other reasons. When it’s said that the Code encourages athletes to accept a provisional suspension voluntarily, I think they mean to avoid the kind of situation that happened with Mosquera. If you suspend yourself, you get credit for the time served, so the final decision can’t decree, say, two years from that time, plus all the preceding time in which results were invalidated. The voluntary suspension would force the ADA to reduce the ban from the date of the hearing forward by the amount of time passed previous to the hearing, beginning from sample collection.

Another passage in this document suggests Froome could get off with just a slap on the wrist:

10.3 Specified Substances

Where an Athlete can establish that the Use of such a specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance, the period of Ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced with the following:

First violation: At a minimum, a warning and reprimand and no period of Ineligibility from future Events, and at a maximum, one (1) year’s Ineligibility.

This passage in the WADA Code is somewhat similar:

10.5.1.1 Specified Substances

Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the athlete or other Person can establish no Significant fault or negligence, then the period of ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of ineligibility, depending on the athlete's or other Person's degree of fault.

The first passage would seem to indicate that any salbutamol positive ruled to have occurred by a mistake in taking too much would get no sanction. That obviously hasn't been the case in recent rulings. The second passage sets a higher bar, since making a mistake in dosage would constitute some fault.

Another point I think deserves emphasis is if that if a salbutamol positive were ruled to be the result of intentional doping by oral dosing, the ban is four years:

10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and the anti-doping organization can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional.

I don't think that's ever happened, because it's extremely hard to prove that a salbutamol level resulted from oral ingestion. As I've discussed previously, the enantiomer test doesn't actually make that discrimination. Petacchi failed that test, but was still ruled to have taken more than the allowed amount by inhalation. But it's something to keep in mind, because if an effective test is developed, riders might think twice before taking advantage of what seems to be a loophole, because even an amount of salbutamol within the allowed level, if shown to be taken orally, could result in a four year suspension.

 

[webvan]

Like someone said (Giro director?) Sky turned a possibility "small" problem into a huge abscess for the sport by:
- no self suspension to set the start of a potential ban, stupid since the season was over.
- not going with the "honest mistake" defense, needed to do interviews, etc...
Not to mention the "business as usual" arrogant behavior with the Giro participation saga.
Like Cookson they seemed certain this would "fix itself", how? Who knows...
If AAFs were public they would probably have been more cautious and this could almost be over with, say, a 6 month backdated suspension. On the other hand the 2x limit remains...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

So basically you're implying Mike Morgan may resort to inciting perjury!? Be careful, i've heard he may know a good Lawyer

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Hiss Froome - Dinner of the 100th Tour de France
The Slime

This is one of the best cycling parodies I have ever seen,
the altered photo of The Climb book cover looks almost real.

Poor bunny rabbit, squished by a "slithering reptile"

New big bad of Supernatural season 14?