Re: Re:
Thanks for taking the time to do that
When Lappartient says "we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS" he's almost certainly right
With the usual litigation caveats (not least that litigation taken all the way is just so goddam unpredictable on an individual case by case basis so many moving parts...) the general position is that, if an entity has a history of enforcing a specific rule in a certain way (so in this case 7.9.3 has never been invoked in a UCI AAF case), that entity will most likely lose on appeal if it suddenly tries to enforce that rule a different way
While I'm still not sure why Lappertient would concede that point in public it's probably because Morgan has already fired a shot across his bows and said don't you dare but/and it may also be to manage the expectations of those cycling fans who are concentrating and who might be getting their hopes up that Froome will not ride until his case is resolved
ClassicomanoLuigi said:This was that Dutch TV station, conducting an interview with Lappartient in French, which probably has not hit the English-language press yet. So, here is my French transcription of the conversation in the video, and translation into English
Autre chose - l'affaire salbutamol de Chris Froome. Ça ne prend pas trop de temps maintenant?
Lappartient: J'espère, mais je ne suis pas dans la procédure quotidienne. Je ne sais pas exactement où ils en sont. Je sais que ça avance, néanmoins. Et on espère tous que ça soit résolu, le plus rapidement possible. Si possible, avant le Giro. Mais malheureusement, l'UCI en telle n'a pas prise sur la durée, on va dire, de la procédure. Tout ça est sous contrôle, mais il y a plus autres autorités, on va voir, le Tribunal Anti-Dopage de l'UCI
Mais, pourquoi vous ne le suspendez pas vous-même?
Lappartient: Légalement, on a le droit de le suspendre. Sauf que, l'UCI, comme les autres sports, applique le reglement mondial de l'agence antidopage, qui prévoit une suspension automatique pour les produits lourds. Mais, pour les produits, les substances Spécifiées, comme le salbutamol, aucune fédération sportive au monde, quelle qu'elle soit, ne suspend pas à titre conservatoire, et nous l'avons jamais fait pour un autre coureur. Si on le fait pour Chris Froome, il aurait, on va dire, un traitement spécifique, et ça ne serait pas equitable. On perdrait devant la Tribune Arbitrale du sport, c'est évident. Chris Froome est un coureur un peu spécial, parce qu'il a plus de notoriété que les autres. Mais dans la manière qu'on le trait, on doit être égal avec les autres. Et c'est pour ça qu'on agit comme ça.
Chez Sky, ils ont beaucoup de spécialistes, beaucoup des avocats. Est-ce que vous avez vu quelque chose de si gros, dans votre carrière déjà?
Lappartient: Alors, ils auront effectivement sans doute des bonnes spécialistes, pour un cadré, et pour notamment, Monsieur Froome. Et nous avons aussi à l'Union Cycliste Internationale des avocats et spécialistes de qualité. Maintenant voilà, il y a débat d'experts. Monsieur Froome a le droit de faire valoir ses droits. Mais c'est vrai qu'il a un peu plus de moyens qu'un autre coureur. Donc ça peut prendre aussi un petit plus de temps. Et puis, voilà, ils laissent d'apporter des arguments à la défense, et c'est tout à fait son droit.
Vous espérez bien, qu'avant le Giro, c'est décidée?
Lappartient: C'est ce qu'on souhaite. Est-ce possible, je ne sais pas. Sachant qu'ensuite, il y a aussi toutes les possibilités d'appel devant le Tribunal Arbitraire du Sport. Et ça, c'est évident que si ça dévelopait jusqu'à là, ça ne serait pas reglé devant le Giro
Another thing, the Chris Froome salbutamol scandal. Is that going to take not much more time now?
Lappartient: I hope so, but I'm not involved in the daily process. I don't know exactly what point they are at. I know that things are going forward, though. And all of us hope that this is going to be resolved as fast as possible. If possible, before the Giro. But unfortunately, the UCI itself doesn't have control over, shall we say, the duration of the process. It's all under control, but there are also, as you will see, other authorities, the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the UCI.
But, why don't you just suspend him yourself?
Lappartient: Legally, we do have the right to suspend him. Except that, like other sports, the UCI applies the rules of the world anti-doping agency, which provides for an automatic suspension for the heaviest drugs. But for drugs which are only Specified Substances, like salbutamol, no sporting federation in the world, no matter which one, suspends as a protective measure. And we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS. Chris Froome is a rider who is a bit special, because he has more notoriety than the others. But the way in which we deal with him has to be the same as for the others. And for that reason, that's why we're doing it this way.
As for Sky, they have lots of specialists and lots of lawyers. Have you ever seen something this big before, in your whole career?
Lappartient: Sure, they undoubtedly have good specialists for their team, and notably for Mr. Froome. And at the UCI, we also have high quality lawyers and experts. As you can see right now, there is a debate between experts. Mr. Froome is entitled to assert his rights. But, it's true that he has a bit more resources than other riders. Therefore, it will also take a little bit more time. And as you see, they are letting him present his arguments for his defense, and it's entirely his right to do so.
So, are you really hoping that this is going to be decided before the Giro?
Lappartient: That's what we're hoping. Is it possible, I don't know. Knowing that after that, there will also be all the possibilities for appeal to CAS. And that, it's obvious that if it comes to that point, it won't be decided before the Giro.
Thanks for taking the time to do that
When Lappartient says "we have never done that for any other rider. If we did that for Chris Froome, that would be, shall we say, a special treatment, and that wouldn't be fair. We would obviously lose at CAS" he's almost certainly right
With the usual litigation caveats (not least that litigation taken all the way is just so goddam unpredictable on an individual case by case basis so many moving parts...) the general position is that, if an entity has a history of enforcing a specific rule in a certain way (so in this case 7.9.3 has never been invoked in a UCI AAF case), that entity will most likely lose on appeal if it suddenly tries to enforce that rule a different way
While I'm still not sure why Lappertient would concede that point in public it's probably because Morgan has already fired a shot across his bows and said don't you dare but/and it may also be to manage the expectations of those cycling fans who are concentrating and who might be getting their hopes up that Froome will not ride until his case is resolved