Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[mrhender]

Re:

Guimard:

"The other riders perhaps have the key to the problem: they could refuse to ride alongside him or refuse anti-doping controls until the affair is resolved."

Utter, utter bollocks

Yep, thats stupid!

Imagine Virenque, Basso - the likes -- refusing to ride because Lance was all doped up.

 

[Parker]

Re:

Guimard is also talking nonsense - because the collective moral action he describes would never happen. Small teams who are glad just to get an invite to the race should protest, and refuse to ride - just because yet another doper found a loophole in yet another doping case?

It's not a loophole. It's the clearly stated rules. A specified substance doesn't have a provisional suspension. What he wants are special new rules to be applied for Froome just because his right to secrecy was failed.

And then he goes on to advocate wholesale breaking of the doping laws which just shows him up to be stupid. (And as for Romandie that is well documented. He had a chest infection, not pneumonia. He was ill, he took medicine, he got better, but still needed a TUE. All Guimard is calling out is decent healthcare)

 

[Merckx index]

We’ve discussed the timing of the ban many times before here. Article 10.11 of the Code does say that the ban begins at the time of the final decision, but if there have been delays in getting to that point which aren’t the athlete’s fault, the ban can be back-dated to the time of the positive (10.11.1).

What if the delays are the athlete’s fault? Can’t Froome take advantage of this to drag out the hearing? No. Article 10.8 says that all results from the time of the positive are DQd, “unless fairness requires otherwise.” If Froome intentionally stalls, fairness does not require that the ban begin at the time of the final decision.

It’s easiest to illustrate with an example. Suppose Froome drags out the process till after the Tour, and gets a nine month ban in August. The nine months begin in August, but in addition, all of his results from the Vuelta last September though August of 2018 are disqualified. So in effect, he gets a ban of more than a year and a half. The additional time is in effect a penalty for delaying the case.

If Froome were not responsible for the decision’s being delayed till August, then in that case the ban would still be back-dated, per 10.11.1. So his nine months would go till June, and probably he could keep the Tour results. The bottom line, though, is that if Froome rides the Giro/Tour and is sanctioned later, he can’t keep those results unless the suspension is so short that even back-dated it’s finished before the start of the Giro or Tour.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

Guimard is also talking nonsense - because the collective moral action he describes would never happen. Small teams who are glad just to get an invite to the race should protest, and refuse to ride - just because yet another doper found a loophole in yet another doping case?

It's not a loophole. It's the clearly stated rules. A specified substance doesn't have a provisional suspension. What he wants are special new rules to be applied for Froome just because his right to secrecy was failed.

And then he goes on to advocate wholesale breaking of the doping laws which just shows him up to be stupid. (And as for Romandie that is well documented. He had a chest infection, not pneumonia. He was ill, he took medicine, he got better, but still needed a TUE. All Guimard is calling out is decent healthcare)

I'm no doctor, but i would not call starting a weeklong stage race while taking oral prednisolone for a chest infection "decent healthcare", but i don't believe he had a chest infection in the first place so...

 

[Poursuivant]

Re:

We’ve discussed the timing of the ban many times before here. Article 10.11 of the Code does say that the ban begins at the time of the final decision, but if there have been delays in getting to that point which aren’t the athlete’s fault, the ban can be back-dated to the time of the positive (10.11.1).

What if the delays are the athlete’s fault? Can’t Froome take advantage of this to drag out the hearing? No. Article 10.8 says that all results from the time of the positive are DQd, “unless fairness requires otherwise.” If Froome intentionally stalls, fairness does not require that the ban begin at the time of the final decision.

It’s easiest to illustrate with an example. Suppose Froome drags out the process till after the Tour, and gets a nine month ban in August. The nine months begin in August, but in addition, all of his results from the Vuelta last September though August of 2018 are disqualified. So in effect, he gets a ban of more than a year and a half. The additional time is in effect a penalty for delaying the case.

If Froome were not responsible for the decision’s being delayed till August, then in that case the ban would still be back-dated, per 10.11.1. So his nine months would go till June, and probably he could keep the Tour results. The bottom line, though, is that if Froome rides the Giro/Tour and is sanctioned later, he can’t keep those results unless either a) the delay in the final ruling is not considered his fault; or b) the suspension is so short that even back-dated it’s finished before the start of the Giro or Tour.

How can they Prove Froome was dragging his heals and delaying though? Froome can just argue he was trying to give himself the best chance of winning his case.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Guimard is also talking nonsense - because the collective moral action he describes would never happen. Small teams who are glad just to get an invite to the race should protest, and refuse to ride - just because yet another doper found a loophole in yet another doping case?

It's not a loophole. It's the clearly stated rules. A specified substance doesn't have a provisional suspension. What he wants are special new rules to be applied for Froome just because his right to secrecy was failed.

And then he goes on to advocate wholesale breaking of the doping laws which just shows him up to be stupid. (And as for Romandie that is well documented. He had a chest infection, not pneumonia. He was ill, he took medicine, he got better, but still needed a TUE. All Guimard is calling out is decent healthcare)

I'm no doctor, but i would not call starting a weeklong stage race while taking oral prednisolone for a chest infection "decent healthcare", but i don't believe he had a chest infection in the first place so...

Spot on. "Healthcare". What an absurd characterization of the sham we saw in Romandie. Anything to excuse Froome I guess.

 

[Parker]

Re:

What if the delays are the athlete’s fault? Can’t Froome take advantage of this to drag out the hearing? No. Article 10.8 says that all results from the time of the positive are DQd, “unless fairness requires otherwise.” If Froome intentionally stalls, fairness does not require that the ban begin at the time of the final decision.

Intentional stalling would be hard to establish though, unless blatant. Especially if there is evidence of LADS dragging their feet (and their always is)

If Froome were not responsible for the decision’s being delayed till August, then in that case the ban would still be back-dated, per 10.11.1. So his nine months would go till June, and probably he could keep the Tour results. The bottom line, though, is that if Froome rides the Giro/Tour and is sanctioned later, he can’t keep those results unless either a) the delay in the final ruling is not considered his fault; or b) the suspension is so short that even back-dated it’s finished before the start of the Giro or Tour.

No, he will keep any results due to the 'fairness requires otherwise' clause that you have mentioned. He was free to ride and there were no unknown factors.

And there will be no backdating even if UCI delay as he wasn't suspended.

 

[webvan]

Bertie was also free to ride when he won the Giro and he lost all his results. The ban was backdated though and included that period. Unless Froome gets less than 12 months (unlikely) he'll lose any 2018 results anyway.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

I'm no doctor

Yet you consider your medical opinion above those who are and actually saw Froome at the time. What is your basis for your superior opinion?

 

[Parker]

Re:

Bertie was also free to ride when he won the Giro and he lost all his results. The ban was backdated though and included that period. Unless Froome gets less than 12 months (unlikely) he'll lose any 2018 results anyway.

He lost an appeal which backdated the 'right' decision back to the date of the 'wrong' decision. (Personally I think CAS got this wrong but Contador's lawyer may have pushed for it)

 

[Red Rick]

Yeah Contador was cleared first. That's why he got it backdated.

I'm not sure what the reason was with Valverde that his ban was backdated so randomly to the start of 2010.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

How can they Prove Froome was dragging his heals and delaying though? Froome can just argue he was trying to give himself the best chance of winning his case.

In some circumstances, yes. If Froome took the case directly to CAS, that would definitely delay any final decision past the Tour, and it would not be his fault, because he has a right to go to CAS (the case will probably end up there eventually, anyway), and that process necessarily takes a long time. I’m pretty sure that would be an example of a delay not attributable to the athlete. For just that reason, I’ve been surprised that Froome hasn’t proposed this. It’s the surest way of ensuring that he can ride the Giro/Tour.

Other than that, the Code doesn’t seem to address this. In fact, the more fundamental question is what constitutes a “substantial delay” on the part of either side. I’m sure there’s plenty of room for lawyers to argue either way. In the end, I guess precedent would play a large role. What is the usual length of time for cases to go to a hearing?

No, he will keep any results due to the 'fairness requires otherwise' clause that you have mentioned. He was free to ride and there were no unknown factors.

That conclusion is not at all obvious from the Code. I freely admit I’m not certain what the fairness clause refers to, and it certainly indicates there are situations in which all results following the positive are not DQd, but it seems to contradict 10.11 directly. You seem to think that 10.8 is jettisoned in this case, but the only place in the Code where the language makes it very clear that one of these rules doesn’t apply is for 10.11.

And there will be no backdating even if UCI delay as he wasn't suspended.

Again, where in the Code does it say that if a rider isn’t suspended there isn’t back-dating? The articles I’ve quoted don’t specify this. On the contrary, 10.11.3 specifically refers to the case where the athlete is suspended, implying that 10.11 applies to all cases, including ones in which the athlete isn’t suspended. Indeed, 10.11.1 refers to all results during this period, when there wouldn't even be any results under consideration if the athlete were suspended.

 

[53*11]

good INRNG piece with a few explainations

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/960795514005590017

Interesting what they say about Froome, if ultimately sanctioned, only losing the Vuelta but getting to keep any results gained during the period waiting for the case to be decided, including the Worlds TT medal and The Giro should the case still be pending by that time......if true, and the writer seems very certain of this fact, then it casts a different light on why Froome is in no hurry to get this concluded.

If he holds out till after the Tour and gets a 9 months ban he could be back in 2019 like nothing happened with a Giro, a 5th Tour then retire

this is one of the few plausible possible tactics by sky but august is a bit too much of a delay; it also ignores the timeliness issue , ie if the athlete can not provide a reasonable explanation then UCI are within their rights to proceed, if they do not WADA can intervene. as inrng state, the ulissi case was 7-8 months from the AAF, in froomedawgs case this would be may 2018 and so impacting on giro and tour...

Not so sure.....whilst the Ulissi case is a useful point of reference it's by no means firm precedent setting.

Froome is trying to build a much more complex and technical defence, which he has the means and entitlement to do.

All his highly paid legal team need to do is convince the authorities that they need a couple of extra months than Ulissi took to properly research and present this case. Hey Presto, Froome is free to not only ride the Giro and the Tour, but also keep any results he gets!

Considering that even his most loyal fans would admit his powers are in decline and he's sure to have a much better shot at success this season than next, then short of being cleared of all charges the scenario above would represent one hell of a result for his legal team.

tell us more about this defence you speak of BB?!!!

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

Looking forward to the crowd's reaction to Froome, especially in France.

If this is still undecided I think he will be ok in Spain and Italy. France who knows, I think the ASO will try to stop him riding if it is still ongoing in any case.

You were right:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/director-of-ruta-del-sol-welcomes-chris-froome/

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Guimard is also talking nonsense - because the collective moral action he describes would never happen. Small teams who are glad just to get an invite to the race should protest, and refuse to ride - just because yet another doper found a loophole in yet another doping case?

It's not a loophole. It's the clearly stated rules. A specified substance doesn't have a provisional suspension. What he wants are special new rules to be applied for Froome just because his right to secrecy was failed.

And then he goes on to advocate wholesale breaking of the doping laws which just shows him up to be stupid. (And as for Romandie that is well documented. He had a chest infection, not pneumonia. He was ill, he took medicine, he got better, but still needed a TUE. All Guimard is calling out is decent healthcare)

You forgot to mention that it's also well documented that Froome's Romandie TUE was signed off by the UCI's notorious Dr Zorzoli in breach of the UCI's newly introduced rule that a panel of three doctors must sign off emergency TUEs. Zorzoli of course also signed off Wiggo's dodgy TUEs. The Zorzoli/Leinders connection still working its magic

Since the UCI finally got round to booting Zorzoli out there has been a huge drop in the number of TUEs granted each year. Sky had to find new rules to bend to breaking point. Like the salbutamol limit...

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Guimard is also talking nonsense - because the collective moral action he describes would never happen. Small teams who are glad just to get an invite to the race should protest, and refuse to ride - just because yet another doper found a loophole in yet another doping case?

It's not a loophole. It's the clearly stated rules. A specified substance doesn't have a provisional suspension. What he wants are special new rules to be applied for Froome just because his right to secrecy was failed.

And then he goes on to advocate wholesale breaking of the doping laws which just shows him up to be stupid. (And as for Romandie that is well documented. He had a chest infection, not pneumonia. He was ill, he took medicine, he got better, but still needed a TUE. All Guimard is calling out is decent healthcare)

Guimard doesn't say anything about a loophole. Any half-decent declared anti-doping team would've suspended a rider with an AAF while still supporting the rider until he gets cleared or banned. Sky did not and this is the main problem. Ethics, morality and so on, all preached by Sir Dave, Brad Kenacort Wiggins and Chris Salbutamol Froome ad nauseam.

 

[S2Sturges]

Re: Re:

Looking forward to the crowd's reaction to Froome, especially in France.

If this is still undecided I think he will be ok in Spain and Italy. France who knows, I think the ASO will try to stop him riding if it is still ongoing in any case.

You were right:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/director-of-ruta-del-sol-welcomes-chris-froome/

Of course the director would, it's all about raising the profile of what is normally a fairly low key early season race, I'd be over the moon to have such a big name, controversial rider grace his cycle race, who cares what he's supposed to have done ... No doubt the advertisers too, are quite content to have the extra bums on seats and tellies switched on.. it's win win win....

 

[MartinGT]

I love the Giro but this has left a bad taste for me;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vegni-i-cant-stop-chris-froome-racing-the-giro-ditalia/

 

[webvan]

Again that Vegni guy proves that he is a total "air head", his arguments contradict themselves and make no sense whatsoever ! First he tried to get the UCI to give him a little piece of paper stating that Froome could ride and since everyone laughed at him he's now saying that if Froome wins he'll get to keep the victory in his book whatever happens. That clown would be within his rights to refuse access to the Giro to Froome as per the UCI rules "reputation of the race", etc...

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Guimard is also talking nonsense - because the collective moral action he describes would never happen. Small teams who are glad just to get an invite to the race should protest, and refuse to ride - just because yet another doper found a loophole in yet another doping case?

It's not a loophole. It's the clearly stated rules. A specified substance doesn't have a provisional suspension. What he wants are special new rules to be applied for Froome just because his right to secrecy was failed.

And then he goes on to advocate wholesale breaking of the doping laws which just shows him up to be stupid. (And as for Romandie that is well documented. He had a chest infection, not pneumonia. He was ill, he took medicine, he got better, but still needed a TUE. All Guimard is calling out is decent healthcare)

Guimard doesn't say anything about a loophole. Any half-decent declared anti-doping team would've suspended a rider with an AAF while still supporting the rider until he gets cleared or banned. Sky did not and this is the main problem. Ethics, morality and so on, all preached by Sir Dave, Brad Kenacort Wiggins and Chris Salbutamol Froome ad nauseam.

I wasn't replying to Guimard.

And why would a ethical team suspend someone they believe to be innocent of doping and at worst negligent in taking permitted medication? All they are doing is sticking to the rules that WADA have deemed the most appropriate. Are we saying that WADA are immoral and unethical? This all needs to be kept in perspective.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Looking forward to the crowd's reaction to Froome, especially in France.

If this is still undecided I think he will be ok in Spain and Italy. France who knows, I think the ASO will try to stop him riding if it is still ongoing in any case.

You were right:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/director-of-ruta-del-sol-welcomes-chris-froome/

Of course the director would, it's all about raising the profile of what is normally a fairly low key early season race, I'd be over the moon to have such a big name, controversial rider grace his cycle race, who cares what he's supposed to have done ... No doubt the advertisers too, are quite content to have the extra bums on seats and tellies switched on.. it's win win win....

Bingo! There you have it, what modern sport is all about. It's not about what's right or wrong, ethics, morals, fair competition blah blah blah....

Its all about generating revenue, by any means necessary. No matter how much we moralise, cycling as a sport has the same basic survival needs and instincts as any other sport.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

I'm no doctor

Yet you consider your medical opinion above those who are and actually saw Froome at the time. What is your basis for your superior opinion?

Because you don't need to be a doctor/see the patient to know that a condition that needs systemic corticosteroid use should warrant rest.
The only exception i can think of is an insect bite/sting, because the patient is otherwise healthy.

 

[Parker]

Re:

Again that Vegni guy proves that he is a total "air head", his arguments contradict themselves and make no sense whatsoever ! First he tried to get the UCI to give him a little piece of paper stating that Froome could ride and since everyone laughed at him he's now saying that if Froome wins he'll get to keep the victory in his book whatever happens. That clown would be within his rights to refuse access to the Giro to Froome as per the UCI rules "reputation of the race", etc...

Not really. He asked for reassurance that any result would stand, and it appears that he got it.

And he and others know that any attempt to exclude Froome would fail, mainly because this process was supposed to be confidential.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

You forgot to mention that it's also well documented that Froome's Romandie TUE was signed off by the UCI's notorious Dr Zorzoli in breach of the UCI's newly introduced rule that a panel of three doctors must sign off emergency TUEs. Zorzoli of course also signed off Wiggo's dodgy TUEs. The Zorzoli/Leinders connection still working its magic

Since the UCI finally got round to booting Zorzoli out there has been a huge drop in the number of TUEs granted each year. Sky had to find new rules to bend to breaking point. Like the salbutamol limit...

1. Who else could they get to sign it off?
2. The new rule came in after this. Previously it was just best practice.
3. Leinders had left Sky long before Froome's TUE.
4. The number of TUEs declined during Zorzoli's tenure not after it.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You forgot to mention that it's also well documented that Froome's Romandie TUE was signed off by the UCI's notorious Dr Zorzoli in breach of the UCI's newly introduced rule that a panel of three doctors must sign off emergency TUEs. Zorzoli of course also signed off Wiggo's dodgy TUEs. The Zorzoli/Leinders connection still working its magic

Since the UCI finally got round to booting Zorzoli out there has been a huge drop in the number of TUEs granted each year. Sky had to find new rules to bend to breaking point. Like the salbutamol limit...

1. Who else could they get to sign it off?
2. The new rule came in after this. Previously it was just best practice.
3. Leinders had left Sky long before Froome's TUE.
4. The number of TUEs declined during Zorzoli's tenure not after it.

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie/

'According to the French newspaper, UCI scientific advisor Dr. Mario Zorzoli signed off on a request from Team Sky for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) without submitting Froome’s medical dossier to a TUE committee, which is required under World Anti-Doping Agency regulations. The WADA code states that applications for a TUE must be reviewed by a committee that “should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.” '

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-suspends-zorzoli-from-anti-doping-work/

'Former rider Michael Rasmussen testified that Zorzoli met with Leinders and said that "Rabobank was a team that had ‘butter on its head’…meaning that all the problems, doping related problems would slide off,” USADA wrote in the full decision. It goes onto say that Leinders refers to Rasmussen as "the most protected rider in the race". Rasmussen also claimed that Leinders advised him to use the steroid DHEA (didehydroepiandrosterone) as a result of a recommendation from Zorzoli.'