After that list the question remains:
Is it possible to influence the judge
by providing them with marginal gains?
Is it possible to influence the judge
by providing them with marginal gains?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
or even substantial ones...TourOfSardinia said:After that list the question remains:
Is it possible to influence the judge
by providing them with marginal gains?
brownbobby said:Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?
Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.
Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
TourOfSardinia said:After that list the question remains:
Is it possible to influence the judge
by providing them with marginal gains?
Parker said:But those are all clear cut positives for substances that are banned in all circumstances and, cocaine aside, would only have been taken to enhance performance.ClassicomanoLuigi said:It appears that every single defendant who was referred to the Anti-Doping Tribunal got convicted, with severe sanctions, irrespective of which Judge was assigned to the case :
UCI ADT 01.2015 UCI c. M. Lloyd Mondory 4 years (EPO) Zylberstein
UCI ADT 02.2015 UCI v. Mr Luca Paolini 1.5 years (cocaine) Haas
UCI ADT 03.2016 UCI v. Ms Blaza Klemencic 2 years (EPO) Zagklis
UCI ADT 02.2016 UCI v. Mr Fabio Taborre 4 years (EPO) Wisnosky
UCI ADT 04.2016 UCI v. Mr Carlos Oyarzun 4 years (FG-4592) Zylberstein
UCI ADT 01.2017 UCI v. Mr Giampaolo Caruso 2 years (EPO) Zylberstein
UCI ADT 05.2016 & 02.2017 UCI v. Mr Jure Kocjan 4 years (EPO) Haas
UCI ADT 03.2017 UCI v. Ms Isabella Moreira Lacerda 4 years (bio-passport) Wisnosky
UCI ADT 05.2017 UCI v. Mr Josemberg Nunes Pinho 4 years (19-NA & 19-NE) Wisnosky
UCI ADT 06.2017 UCI v. Mr Alex Correia Diniz 4 years (bio-passport) Haas
UCI ADT 09.2017 UCI v. Mr. Nicola Ruffoni 4 years (GHRP) Bachmann
UCI ADT 08.2017 UCI v. Mr Kleber Da Silva Ramos 4 years (CERA) Zylberstein
UCI ADT 04.2017 UCI v. Mr Ralf Matzka 2 years (tamoxifen) Zagklis
And both of the two cyclists who appealed their bans to CAS lost their appeals, with the original Anti-Doping Tribunal judgments upheld :
CAS 2016 / A / Carlos Ivàn Oyarzun Guiñez v. UCI & UCI-ADT & PASO & CNOC 4 years (FG-4592) CAS appeal
CAS 2016 / A / 4648 Blaza Klemencic v. UCI 2 years (EPO) CAS appeal
So on the basis of precedence, it seems that: Froome either has to pull off something miraculous, or get banned for two years.
I could not find any example of acquittal for cyclists sent to the Anti-Doping Tribunal - someone please correct this, if there were in fact any athletes who were exonerated or who escaped on technicalities
Froome on the other hand has taken a drug that he was allowed to take and was publicly known to be taking. It's not a clear cut case with strict liability. It's possible that someone can take too much accidentally (and furthermore not realise they have done so).
veganrob said:You're not dumb at all but I don't really understand your thinking. I am firmly in the anti-Sky camp. And it is entirely possible/probable that nothing will change in pro cycling even if Froome is guilty and gets properpastronef said:thehog said:webvan said:Yep, just sit out 2019, enjoy his money, his wife and his kid ! Will he ever win a GT again is that happens ? It's hard to tell, on the one hand he's been so dominant since 2011, but Bertie was too and it took him a while to get back to his best level, say the 2014 TDF where he unfortunately crashed.
No, no, that won’t do. We need a spectacular fall from grace, months of denial followed by a full confession outlining Sky’s team wide doping program backup with a two part interview with Jeremy Kyle.
I must be honest: that´s what I dont wish. I dont want the anti-Sky anti-Froome to enjoy that.
call me dumb, call me what you want.
suspension. But really that sounds like so much apathy from you.
TourOfSardinia said:what: that no wrong-doing anglo-ethicHe wants to come off completely clean.
good luck
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.ClassicomanoLuigi said:Partly agree, partly disagree because
- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
silvergrenade said:brownbobby said:Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?
Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.
Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
VO2 Max said:Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Parker said:But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.ClassicomanoLuigi said:Partly agree, partly disagree because
- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
There's a difference with regards to intent. It won't get you off a sanction though - but will inform the nature of the sanction.rhubroma said:Parker said:But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.ClassicomanoLuigi said:Partly agree, partly disagree because
- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
As I understand it negligence, which is what Ulissi admitted to, is tantamount to malice in terms of a rider being sanctioned. You know, all that troublesome stuff about a rider being responsible for what goes in his body.
pastronef said:VO2 Max said:pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
rhubroma said:pastronef said:VO2 Max said:pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:
"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).
To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
pastronef said:rhubroma said:pastronef said:VO2 Max said:pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:
"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).
To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.
brownbobby said:No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling
no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.
pastronef said:VO2 Max said:Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
VO2 Max said:Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.pastronef said:Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
macbindle said:You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.