• 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 1126 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
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.

My calculation is not important. Neither is yours. Your welcome
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
Alpe73 said:
spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
"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.

My calculation is not important. Neither is yours. Your welcome

Then, neither is your street cred in regards to commenting on this tiny sub thread, bro. ;)
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

[quoterl=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2226183#p2226183]spetsa[/url]"]
Alpe73 said:
spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
"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.

My calculation is not important. Neither is yours. Your welcome
[/quote]

Then, neither is your street cred in regards to commenting on this tiny sub thread, bro. ;)[/quote]

Street cred? Really. Are you 12 years old? I am fine remaining outside of your culture. Have a great day.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...
I think he did irreparable damage to a company that was previously famous for its employees going on gun killing sprees.

I stand ... corrected. :redface:
Nominating that one ... for an Oscar ... seriously. :lol:
 
It’s too late now, but imagine if this scenario had occurred:

Upon learning of the B sample confirmation of the A sample positive in early October last fall, Froome does three things:

a) makes a public announcement of this fact
b) provisionally suspends himself
c) requests that his case go directly to CAS, and be resolved within six months

The first step commits himself to transparency; no accusations that he’s trying to get this positive swept under the rug by a compliant UCI. The second step removes any possibility of racing under uncertainty whether the results will count, and also ensures that if there is a ban, it will begin with the positive, much of it covering a period when he’s inactive, anyway. And the third step is the only possible option that ensures that if he rides the Giro and/or Tour, the results will count, without the possibility of an appeal that changes everything.

Given that any decision by CADF was likely to be appealed to CAS, anyway, I don’t see why any of the parties involved would have objected, and given Froome’s importance to racing, and that none of the parties involved wanted to see him riding before the case was resolved, there would have been an effort to settle this as quickly as possible. In fact, as pointed out upthread in the discussion of the Petacchi case, CAS can normally reach a decision within four months of an appeal, so it wouldn’t have been difficult to settle this well before the Giro. If the decision was a ban, Froome would have served much of it by then, and might have been able to ride the Giro or at least the Tour. And if the ban was so long that he couldn’t, well, there would have been no reason to think it would have been any different if he had gone through the LADS/CADF process.

So why didn’t Froome do this? Because he clung to the hope that he could persuade LADS to exonerate him, and wanted time to try. But he could have spent a month or two exploring the options, and still had time to appeal to CAS. The fact is that salbutamol cases have been around for a long time, and all the possible ways of explaining a level above threshold have been tried, and generally failed. It shouldn’t have taken him long to realize that he was very unlikely to convince LADS, and even if he was certain he could, the same arguments that worked for them should have worked for CAS.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...

Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thehog said:
RCS have Froome over a barrel. The fact that Froome concealed his doping positive to induce RCS into a $2m appearance fee and contract will allow them to do as they please. Participation is separated but Froome has already given them enough scope to rightfully bar him from the race.

I think this is likely to be correct

The UCI's rules about excluding riders from races, and the related precedents set by organisers, are separate from the contractual arrangement between RCS and Froome/Sky relating to the $2m appearance fee

And if Froome/Sky entered into the appearance fee contract in bad faith (i.e. they failed to disclose the AAF) then Froome/Sky must now be in breach of that contract and RCS would presumably be able to terminate it and exclude Froome (and possibly Sky?) from the race

In that context it's odd that RCS's public stance is to put the onus on the UCI to hold them harmless. RCS need to stop whinging and grow a pair!
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
It’s too late now, but imagine if this scenario had occurred:

Upon learning of the B sample confirmation of the A sample positive in early October last fall, Froome does three things:

a) makes a public announcement of this fact
b) provisionally suspends himself
c) requests that his case go directly to CAS, and be resolved within six months

The first step commits himself to transparency; no accusations that he’s trying to get this positive swept under the rug by a compliant UCI. The second step removes any possibility of racing under uncertainty whether the results will count, and also ensures that if there is a ban, it will begin with the positive, much of it covering a period when he’s inactive, anyway. And the third step is the only possible option that ensures that if he rides the Giro and/or Tour, the results will count, without the possibility of an appeal that changes everything.

Given that any decision by CADF was likely to be appealed to CAS, anyway, I don’t see why any of the parties involved would have objected, and given Froome’s importance to racing, and that none of the parties involved wanted to see him riding before the case was resolved, there would have been an effort to settle this as quickly as possible. In fact, as pointed out upthread in the discussion of the Petacchi case, CAS can normally reach a decision within four months of an appeal, so it wouldn’t have been difficult to settle this well before the Giro. If the decision was a ban, Froome would have served much of it by then, and might have been able to ride the Giro or at least the Tour. And if the ban was so long that he couldn’t, well, there would have been no reason to think it would have been any different if he had gone through the LADS/CADF process.

So why didn’t Froome do this? Because he clung to the hope that he could persuade LADS to exonerate him, and wanted time to try. But he could have spent a month or two exploring the options, and still had time to appeal to CAS. The fact is that salbutamol cases have been around for a long time, and all the possible ways of explaining a level above threshold have been tried, and generally failed. It shouldn’t have taken him long to realize that he was very unlikely to convince LADS, and even if he was certain he could, the same arguments that worked for them should have worked for CAS.

Bear in mind that racing while stringing out the legal proceedings is almost certainly a deliberate ploy by Froome's legal team (and would have been even if the AAF hadn't been made public)

The more he races the greater pressure on the UCI to find a way to settle the AAF in his favour
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...

Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.

Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...

Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.

Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.

'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...

Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.

Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.

'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........

I reckon you’d give the foot washing religious right a run for their money in regards to faith.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...

Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.

Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.

'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........

I reckon you’d give the foot washing religious right a run for their money in regards to faith.
WTF has that to do with this thread :confused:
OFF TOPIC or what.
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.

'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........

I reckon you’d give the foot washing religious right a run for their money in regards to faith.
WTF has that to do with this thread :confused:
OFF TOPIC or what.

TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
How many of those desperately clinging to the disrepute raft believe LA brought disrepute upon USPS? A show of hands, go on...

Why would this have anything to do with Froome disreputing Giro or Tour? The rules don't say anything about disreputing the sponsors as far as I'm aware.

Did LA disrepute TDF? Hell yes. Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.

Generally speaking, a Disrepute card ... played to keep Froome out of a race ... should have some integrity behind it. In other words, organizers may have to/should have to demonstrate that .... in the past, doping allegations, doping convictions, ongoing doping cases ... have measurably damaged the reputation of the sport. For example ... significant decreases in attendance at TDF/Giro races, significant decreases in TV viewership of TDF/Giro races, etc. If Giro organizers could demonstrate this ... I'm definitely in your camp.

But ... I don't think they can. I don't have the numbers for TDF viewership post Armstrong reasoned decision ... but I don't think you'll find significant measurements of damage to the TDF.

'direpute' may be qualitative as well as qualitative...and the bar is set at 'might'.........
I suggest you read the relevant literature and work out the difference between what Froom is accused of and the media brouhaha that we are witnessing.
 
Here's my guess...and it is just a guess, wrt all this speculation about what race organisers will and will not do when it comes to trying to bar Froome from their events.....not a damn thing! They will continue to milk the situation for all its worth, cash in on the hype, speculation and interest to keep their events in the spotlight, to keep people talking about them more so than they usually would. Release the odd piece about their 'concerns', more to keep their events on the media platforms than anything else.

But in the end, they'll be more than happy to see Froome at the event, and the whole circus that's following him around this year.

Same goes for the sponsors.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Guess I must be imagining all those drawn football games and cricket matches. Silly me...

Aaaawww how cute of you being smart :redface:

Don't you think that normally even those games are part of competition, i.e. series? Friendly matches are not competition. I think you are being a bit silly :p
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.
Guess I must be imagining all those drawn football games and cricket matches. Silly me...

Aaaawww how cute of you being smart :redface:
Oops, I did it again. Now I hadn't realised smarts - the ability to think - was frowned upon. I'll book my lobotomy tomorrow...
 
Alpe73 said:
TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.

Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping
 

TRENDING THREADS