• 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 1129 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
spetsa said:
yaco said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.

Decision by RCS to give a wildcard team an invitation to the Giro in 2018, after the events of 2017 is staggering - RCS should not have given Bardiani a wildcard for the next three editions.

What does this have to do with Froome? Please explain. Your argument about Bardiani, standing alone from Froome is pretty solid. The two just aren't connected.

Wow - Have you being reading the last few pages of the thread - It's been discussing the validity and morality of RCS refusing to issue Froome an invitation to the GIRO, because it's a 'bad look for the sport.'
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
yaco said:
spetsa said:
yaco said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.

Decision by RCS to give a wildcard team an invitation to the Giro in 2018, after the events of 2017 is staggering - RCS should not have given Bardiani a wildcard for the next three editions.

What does this have to do with Froome? Please explain. Your argument about Bardiani, standing alone from Froome is pretty solid. The two just aren't connected.

Wow - Have you being reading the last few pages of the thread - It's been discussing the validity and morality of RCS refusing to issue Froome an invitation to the GIRO, because it's a 'bad look for the sport.'

Does Bardiani have any riders currently involved in a doping investigation that they are threatening to enter into the Giro? If you are going to apply your logic, any team with a rider who tested positive last year should be excluded from the race. Is that what you are advocating for? No BMC?
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.
I've already explained it to you once, across several posts, explaining specifically why disrepute will not fly and showing how it couldn't fly in the Valverde case. You seem to be ignoring the explanation.

And next time try not body-shaming me by passing comment on my anckles.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?

As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.
 
53*11 said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.

give that man a prize, thats the most daft, laughable, inane comment of the day for me (and there was stiff competition!) thanks sam :razz:

Why is it daft, laughable or indeed inane for Sam to think that in a ĺittle over 2 months time the case will be over and Froome will be cleared. :confused:

Of course he's just guessing and voicing an opinion, I'm guessing it's a different opinion to yours, but one shared by many others.

BTW.....being cleared doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent. That's entirely different.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.
I've already explained it to you once, across several posts, explaining specifically why disrepute will not fly and showing how it couldn't fly in the Valverde case. You seem to be ignoring the explanation.

And next time try not body-shaming me by passing comment on my anckles.

You are probably able to summarize it somehow because I don't remember any of you messages explaining clearly why I read the rules wrong. You just speculate why disrepute wouldn't work. You asked for the rules, explain why my interpetation of the rule is factually incorrect.

You are rocking to ask people to explain and prove, but I don't really see explanations or proof from you, just bullying around the topic.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Could you instead of spetsa explain why you think my reading of rulebook is wrong? And don't go to your funny anckles of using the word might. Just quote (all of it, not just the part that suits you best) my message and explain where I read the rules incorrectly.
I've already explained it to you once, across several posts, explaining specifically why disrepute will not fly and showing how it couldn't fly in the Valverde case. You seem to be ignoring the explanation.

And next time try not body-shaming me by passing comment on my anckles.

No, you've explained it to yourself in your own head. Please try to explain it to us, in relation to the language used by those who wrote the rules. We will wait patiently.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?

As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.

viewtopic.php?p=2219568#p2219568

viewtopic.php?p=2219892#p2219892
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?

As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.

viewtopic.php?p=2219568#p2219568

viewtopic.php?p=2219892#p2219892

Your first link and message I commented back and explained why I see the rules differently. You responded it is wishful thinking, but haven't explained why and why is my interpetation of rule incorrect. So try again.

Valverde document is in French where I'm even worse than in english. Would you mind to provide english version (I think it is even forum rule)?
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, if you find someone disagreeing with you insulting, good luck with life. Go get one.
Disagree with me, by all means. But accusing me of the polar opposite of what I have been saying, that is not disagreeing, that is denigrating.

Now. Do you have any evidence to support your disagreement with me or do you just have insults?

As Bambino said above, I think it is time you explain your interpretation of the rules with quotes to them. Enlighten us as to why, and where, those who made the rules got it wrong in their writing of them. We will wait patiently.

viewtopic.php?p=2219568#p2219568

viewtopic.php?p=2219892#p2219892

Your first link and message I commented back and explained why I see the rules differently. You responded it is wishful thinking, but haven't explained why and why is my interpetation of rule incorrect. So try again.

Valverde document is in French where I'm even worse than in english. Would you mind to provide english version (I think it is even forum rule)?
I explained in part. You have ignored that.

In accordance with the rules of the forum I provided a translation of the relevant passages of the Valverde judgement.
 
Could you point to the message where you've explained in part? I don't remember it and I don't want to be ignorant. How about the rest and not just part?

The Valverde document is more than 20 pages. I would like to understand the full context, which you've yourself said to be very important in many occasions. No english?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Explained in part! Please explain in full with quotes to the rules and a complete explanation as to why the authors got it wrong. We will wait patiently.
 
Re:

bambino said:
Could you point to the message where you've explained in part? I don't remember it and I don't want to be ignorant. How about the rest and not just part?
Ha ha. Remember saying this?
And I won't link my message to you. Go and find it. I don't like helping people that starts the spiral of insults.
I think that's called ironic.
bambino said:
The Valverde document is more than 20 pages. I would like to understand the full context, which you've yourself said to be very important in many occasions. No english?
Did you actually read my post?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Could you point to the message where you've explained in part? I don't remember it and I don't want to be ignorant. How about the rest and not just part?
Ha ha. Remember saying this?
And I won't link my message to you. Go and find it. I don't like helping people that starts the spiral of insults.
I think that's called ironic.
bambino said:
The Valverde document is more than 20 pages. I would like to understand the full context, which you've yourself said to be very important in many occasions. No english?
Did you actually read my post?

Yes I do remember saying that. It is not ironic. You knew exactly the message I was talking about. I have no clue about the message you are talking about. Pretty different.

Yes I did. Have you found the english version in the mean time? I hope you appreciate I would like to read it myself and not just trust your 3 bullets. If there is no english version available, then too bad. I can't make a judgement of that accordingly then.
 
Re:

spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.

Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That is entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.

Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.

The UCI has not been negligent, never said they have been. RCS has every right to exclude Froome as per the rules. Again, please show me why I am wrong with quotes to the rules and not your circular semantic BS.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.

Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.

I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if you would explain where I go wrong in my understanding of that rule.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.

Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.

I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if you would explain where I go wrong in my understanding of that rule.

He can't.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re:

bambino said:
Whatever. I'm done with this debate. No need to feed ............ anymore.

I'm with you on that. Snowed a bunch here last night and they groomed the skate tracks today. Gonna go get some k's in before dark.
 

TRENDING THREADS