• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1125 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

bambino said:
yaco said:
Think Froome better soon organise a date at the CAS - He could be at CAS on more than one occasion - Of course the UCI needs to support the race organisers or it has no legs.

I don't think CAS works by a way to pre-book dates. I guess one needs a decision to appeal against.

You have taken my post literally - It means as soon as race organisers/UCI withdraw Froome's invitation to race, then his lawyer will be at CAS faster than you can blink.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.

This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
bambino said:
I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.
I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

The current WADA code is no different to the 2003 version with respect to results being stripped.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bambino said:
yaco said:
Think Froome better soon organise a date at the CAS - He could be at CAS on more than one occasion - Of course the UCI needs to support the race organisers or it has no legs.

I don't think CAS works by a way to pre-book dates. I guess one needs a decision to appeal against.

You have taken my post literally- It means as soon as race organisers/UCI withdraw Froome's invitation to race, then his lawyer will be at CAS faster than you can blink.

Or maybe your radar for sarcasm had malfunction.
 
Re: Re:

Bronstein said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.
I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

The current WADA code is no different to the 2003 version with respect to results being stripped.
Maybe not, but as a precedent it will have been overtaken by more recent cases. Petacchi's case was odd anyway - there seems to be no logic in when his ban ran and what results he did and didn't lose. The results he lost were due to the ban being backdated - I think the grounds for that are probably different now. And, like Contador, it was an appeal case where he had originally been cleared.

Even so, the Petacchi case would still support the idea that Froome would keep his results. The ruling:

The following decisions have been pronounced by the CAS:

- the period of ineligibility of Alessandro Petacchi shall start on 1 November 2007 and shall come to end on 31 August 2008;

- all competitive results obtained by Alessandro Petacchi during the 2007 Giro d'Italia shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

- Alessandro Petacchi can retain all other competitive results between 23 May 2007 and 31 October 2007, but all competitive results obtained after 31 October 2007 and during the period of ineligibility will be disqualified.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.

This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.

Which Bardiani riders that raced the 2018 Giro had ongoing doping investigations? Who is claiming Sky as a team won't be invited.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Bronstein said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
I guess we all (even you) agree that stripping off the result of Giro contender due to doping violation would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and the race?

If there is an instance in this world that can 100% guarantee Froome won't be stripped off his Giro (or Tour) results because of the ongoing Salbutamol case, then there is no issue for him racing I guess. I doubt there is such instance that will give the organizers 100% guarantee. And without guarantee there is fear that he will be stripped which would be harmful for the reputation of the sport and race. There's the case.
I can agree that it would be harmful. But I've seen nothing in the rules or, more crucially, in precedent cases* for salbutamol that this will be the case.

(*Under recent versions of the WADA code - Petacchi is too far back)

The current WADA code is no different to the 2003 version with respect to results being stripped.
Maybe not, but as a precedent it will have been overtaken by more recent cases. Petacchi's case was odd anyway - there seems to be no logic in when his ban ran and what results he did and didn't lose. The results he lost were due to the ban being backdated - I think the grounds for that are probably different now. And, like Contador, it was an appeal case where he had originally been cleared.

Even so, the Petacchi case would still support the idea that Froome would keep his results. The ruling:

The following decisions have been pronounced by the CAS:

- the period of ineligibility of Alessandro Petacchi shall start on 1 November 2007 and shall come to end on 31 August 2008;

- all competitive results obtained by Alessandro Petacchi during the 2007 Giro d'Italia shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

- Alessandro Petacchi can retain all other competitive results between 23 May 2007 and 31 October 2007, but all competitive results obtained after 31 October 2007 and during the period of ineligibility will be disqualified.

CAS precedent isn't binding, therefore Petacchi's case hasn't been 'overtaken'. From the Petacchi judgment:

When a tribunal is exercising a discretion, no one case can be taken as a precedent for the exercise of that discretion. Absent the application of the principle of binding precedent, the facts of one case can, at best, indicate the factors which it seemed legitimate to the particular tribunal to take into account.

The Petacchi judgment also mentions two reasons as to why he kept some of his results:

The Panel has already concluded that Mr. Petacchi bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, and that it is satisfied as to the circumstances in which the excessive quantity of Salbutamol was taken which led to the adverse analytical finding. Article 274 of the ADR provides the Panel with a measure of discretion. In this case the Panel takes into account the fact that Mr. Petacchi voluntarily excluded himself from much racing since the Giro d’Italia 2007 and the adverse analytical finding.

In Froome's case, we don't yet know if he bears no significant fault or negligence because his case hasn't been heard and his defence isn't known, assuming he has one. As Froome hasn't voluntarily excluded himself from racing, this may work against him.

Some of Petacchi's 2008 results were stripped because of delays not attributable to Petacchi. As his period of ineligibility started on 1 November 2007, his 2008 results were stripped up until the point at which he was free to race again:

Despite Mr. Petacchi waiving his right to have his B sample analysed, the anti-doping proceedings have progressed rather slowly. UPA-CONI filed its appeal with CAS on 23 August 2007. Normally CAS would issue its award within about four months (120 days) from the date on which the appeal is filed, which would have been 20 December 2007 at the latest. Due to certain delays in the hearing process which were not attributable to Mr. Petacchi, the hearing did not take place until 2 April 2008.

However, the Panel is satisfied that in a case of this type the hearing would have taken place and the award would have been issued well within the 4 month period. The Panel is satisfied that, all things being equal, arrangements would have been made for an early hearing so that the award would have been issued by 1 November 2007.

In the circumstances, therefore, the Panel considers that fairness requires that the period of ineligibility should start on 1 November 2007 and expire on 31 August 2008.

Again, because the proceedings in Froome's case haven't concluded, no one can really say whether there have been or will be delays that are not attributable to Froome. It is possible that there may be such delays, which may result in some of Froome's results being stripped.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.

This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.

Good post.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
 
Re: Re:

Bronstein said:
[

Despite Mr. Petacchi waiving his right to have his B sample analysed, the anti-doping proceedings have progressed rather slowly. UPA-CONI filed its appeal with CAS on 23 August 2007. Normally CAS would issue its award within about four months (120 days) from the date on which the appeal is filed, which would have been 20 December 2007 at the latest. Due to certain delays in the hearing process which were not attributable to Mr. Petacchi, the hearing did not take place until 2 April 2008.

However, the Panel is satisfied that in a case of this type the hearing would have taken place and the award would have been issued well within the 4 month period. The Panel is satisfied that, all things being equal, arrangements would have been made for an early hearing so that the award would have been issued by 1 November 2007.

In the circumstances, therefore, the Panel considers that fairness requires that the period of ineligibility should start on 1 November 2007 and expire on 31 August 2008.

Again, because the proceedings in Froome's case haven't concluded, no one can really say whether there have been or will be delays that are not attributable to Froome. It is possible that there may be such delays, which may result in some of Froome's results being stripped.
But such a backdating would only be done on application by the athlete. It's not done automatically. Petacchi didn't lose any major wins so he was happy to do it. Froome isn't going to throw away major results. If he crashes out of the Giro with a broken collarbone then different story.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.

This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.

Good post.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground.
Some important context: a partial list of races that have had their reputation 'ruined' by having to rewrite the results:

Tour de France 1904
Tour de France 1999
Tour de France 2000
Tour de France 2001
Tour de France 2002
Tour de France 2003
Tour de France 2004
Tour de France 2005
Tour de France 2006
Tour de France 2010

Giro d'Italia 2011

Vuelta a España 1982
Vuelta a España 2005

Il Lombardia 1907
Il Lombardia 1930
Il Lombardia 1969
Il Lombardia 1973

Milan-Sanremo 1915

Paris-Roubaix 1934

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1974
Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1981

It's gonna be a tough claim to make stick, even before you consider RCS's own role and reputation...
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground.
Some important context: a partial list of races that have had their reputation 'ruined' by having to rewrite the results:

Tour de France 1904
Tour de France 1999
Tour de France 2000
Tour de France 2001
Tour de France 2002
Tour de France 2003
Tour de France 2004
Tour de France 2005
Tour de France 2006
Tour de France 2010

Giro d'Italia 2011

Vuelta a España 1982
Vuelta a España 2005

Il Lombardia 1907
Il Lombardia 1930
Il Lombardia 1969
Il Lombardia 1973

Milan-Sanremo 1915

Paris-Roubaix 1934

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1974
Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1981

It's gonna be a tough claim to make stick, even before you consider RCS's own role and reputation...

Actually, you just supported RCS reasoning. Hasn't happened since 2011 and they are not going to let it happen again. Froome better find a way to get cleared before May, or he will not be racing.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground.
Some important context: a partial list of races that have had their reputation 'ruined' by having to rewrite the results:

Tour de France 1904
Tour de France 1999
Tour de France 2000
Tour de France 2001
Tour de France 2002
Tour de France 2003
Tour de France 2004
Tour de France 2005
Tour de France 2006
Tour de France 2010

Giro d'Italia 2011

Vuelta a España 1982
Vuelta a España 2005

Il Lombardia 1907
Il Lombardia 1930
Il Lombardia 1969
Il Lombardia 1973

Milan-Sanremo 1915

Paris-Roubaix 1934

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1974
Liège-Bastogne-Liège 1981

It's gonna be a tough claim to make stick, even before you consider RCS's own role and reputation...

Actually, you just supported RCS reasoning. Hasn't happened since 2011 and they are not going to let it happen again. Froome better find a way to get cleared before May, or he will not be racing.
Daftest logic I've heard today...and today's been a doozy for daftness...
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.

I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.

I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.

Ignoring facts such as these is daft.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.
We've been through this elsewhere: the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.

I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.

You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.

The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.

For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:

"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."

The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.

I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.

And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html

Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.

Ignoring facts such as these is daft.

"Disrepute" ... it's a perception held my the public. Its impact is calculated by measurable 'damage.'

Taking into consideration ... manipulation by the media ... such as in this thread ... what's your ballpark calculation/figure, Spetsa, of 'damage to be done' via any of the several outcomes of his case ... as it relates to Frrome's participation in the Giro?

Thanks, in advance.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.

I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.

This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.

Good post.
Bad Post
 
Bambino - if you bothered to read the actual ruling by which the IOC blocked those Russians you would see immediately why it is not relevant here.

Your whole argument is based on wishful thinking, not the rules, not the relevant case law. It would be better for the sport if people stopped making such specious arguments.
 

TRENDING THREADS