Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Beech Mtn]

Re:

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

A couple weeks ago, the Trump administration fined the US-based section of Rabobank something like $360m for basically laundering vast sums for Mexican drug cartels. I never checked to see if any executives had to step down as a result of this. Maybe the bank only cares about certain kinds of Boogiemen.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

5. I don't agree. There is a rule that allows organizers to decline him racing. I've asked time and time again someone to explain why that rule does not allow organizers to potentially decline him from racing. It is a rule like any other rule.

You have had it explained to you. Clearly, patiently, in detail. The logical absurdity of your argument has been demonstrated to you. You are either unwilling or unable to accept this.

The solution is simple: stop trying to convince us of your legal expertise. Take your opinion to RCS/UCI. When they fall back on the Disrepute clause, feel vindicated.

Yeah we get. Just as bambino said. You think we are not only wrong, but stupid for not agreeing with you.

I have not accused anyone of being stupid and if you really think I have I suggest you report the matter to a moderator.

 

[53*11]

Fair enough, i'm cool with that and share your opinion mostly.

But don't forget, sometimes the guilty are found innocent and vice versa. The more resource (money/technical 'experts' etc) you have at your disposal to throw at a case the more chance you have of getting away with it.....so i think he's guilty and i think he'll be sanctioned, but it wont be a massive shock to me if he isn't.[/quote]
true that

 

[thehog]

Fair enough, i'm cool with that and share your opinion mostly.

But don't forget, sometimes the guilty are found innocent and vice versa. The more resource (money/technical 'experts' etc) you have at your disposal to throw at a case the more chance you have of getting away with it.....so i think he's guilty and i think he'll be sanctioned, but it wont be a massive shock to me if he isn't.

true that[/quote]


All that money provide is the ability to string out the proceedings for as long as possible. Appealing sporting decisions is a costly business never weighted in the athletes favor.

 

[53*11]

Fair enough, i'm cool with that and share your opinion mostly.

But don't forget, sometimes the guilty are found innocent and vice versa. The more resource (money/technical 'experts' etc) you have at your disposal to throw at a case the more chance you have of getting away with it.....so i think he's guilty and i think he'll be sanctioned, but it wont be a massive shock to me if he isn't.

true that

All that money provide is the ability to string out the proceedings for as long as possible. Appealing sporting decisions is a costly business never weighted in the athletes favor.[/quote]
i guess it depends on whether it is sky or froome that is paying the legal costs>?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

You actually raise a very good point and that is to “context”.

The part FMK is missing is the Organization rules are not laws nor are they binding in any form. What they constitute is an “agreement”; firstly between teams and then individual riders. RCS are at full liberty to change their rules or to interpret them any way they see fit. Of course those rules can be challenged but I couldn’t see CAS falling on the side of the team or athlete. RCS is a private organization so as long as they don’t encroach on common law ref: Bosman, then they can do as they see fit and ban Froome.

 

[brownbobby]

Fair enough, i'm cool with that and share your opinion mostly.

But don't forget, sometimes the guilty are found innocent and vice versa. The more resource (money/technical 'experts' etc) you have at your disposal to throw at a case the more chance you have of getting away with it.....so i think he's guilty and i think he'll be sanctioned, but it wont be a massive shock to me if he isn't.

true that

All that money provide is the ability to string out the proceedings for as long as possible. Appealing sporting decisions is a costly business never weighted in the athletes favor.[/quote]

Or the ability to buy off powerful and influential people....if you're given to conspiracy theories

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.

You actually raise a very good point and that is to “context”.

The part FMK is missing is the Organization rules are not laws nor are they binding in any form. What they constitute is an “agreement”; firstly between teams and then individual riders. RCS are at full liberty to change their rules or to interpret them any way they see fit. Of course those rules can be challenged but I couldn’t see CAS falling on the side of the team or athlete. RCS is a private organization so as long as they don’t encroach on common law ref: Bosman, then they can do as they see fit and ban Froome.

I agree, and it was obvious this point was getting lost in the previous debate (which i chose to avoid until now because it was getting a bit too heated and emotional).

As i think FMK did try to point out, WADA/UCI rules were not being referred to. In fact, i'm not even sure you would/could call them rules at all.....i think they are more aptly referred to as terms and conditions of entry and participation to the event.

As long as they're not in any way discriminatory (on the grounds of things like race, religion etc etc) then i would agree the organisers can attach whatever terms and conditions they please to their event.

That's not to say that if applied, they couldn't be subject to some form of legal challenge.

Anyway, i don't want to get too deep into this debate...i think its mostly irrelevant as i don't think for one minute any race organisers this year will be trying too hard to exclude Froome, regardless of what they want the press and general public to believe.

 

[veganrob]

Fair enough, i'm cool with that and share your opinion mostly.

But don't forget, sometimes the guilty are found innocent and vice versa. The more resource (money/technical 'experts' etc) you have at your disposal to throw at a case the more chance you have of getting away with it.....so i think he's guilty and i think he'll be sanctioned, but it wont be a massive shock to me if he isn't.

true that

All that money provide is the ability to string out the proceedings for as long as possible. Appealing sporting decisions is a costly business never weighted in the athletes favor.

Or the ability to buy off powerful and influential people....if you're given to conspiracy theories [/quote]
Is it still considered a conspiracy theory if it has happened before? Just wondering.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Eh? You expect him to tell everyone he's ill in the middle of a race? Who would do that?

So the jurnos who apparently see him on deaths door, almost on a ventolator if you beleive what he is saying, they wouldnt write that?

Aye you are correct, how silly of me.

'Today Froome looked good at the end of the stage, almost as if he had just walked into the breafast room ready for a day fishing'

:lol: :lol:

 

[brownbobby]

Fair enough, i'm cool with that and share your opinion mostly.

But don't forget, sometimes the guilty are found innocent and vice versa. The more resource (money/technical 'experts' etc) you have at your disposal to throw at a case the more chance you have of getting away with it.....so i think he's guilty and i think he'll be sanctioned, but it wont be a massive shock to me if he isn't.

true that

All that money provide is the ability to string out the proceedings for as long as possible. Appealing sporting decisions is a costly business never weighted in the athletes favor.

Or the ability to buy off powerful and influential people....if you're given to conspiracy theories

Is it still considered a conspiracy theory if it has happened before? Just wondering.[/quote]

Different people? Different circumstances? Same outcomes?

Some would say yes. Some would say no.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

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.

You actually raise a very good point and that is to “context”.

The part FMK is missing is the Organization rules are not laws nor are they binding in any form. What they constitute is an “agreement”; firstly between teams and then individual riders. RCS are at full liberty to change their rules or to interpret them any way they see fit. Of course those rules can be challenged but I couldn’t see CAS falling on the side of the team or athlete. RCS is a private organization so as long as they don’t encroach on common law ref: Bosman, then they can do as they see fit and ban Froome.

Be careful, you will get the legal experts hunting you down.

But I agree, this is not any "human right" discussion. It is about competition organizers ability to choose who competes in the competition and who not. And to be honest... although FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision:

"7.6 The starting point for an analysis of the application is Article 44 par. 3 of the Olympic Charter:

“Any entry is subject to acceptance by the IOC, which may, at its discretion, refuse any entry, without indication of grounds. Nobody is entitled as of right to participate in the Olympic Games”.

In this spesific case, they banned the whole national commitee (ROC) which ment automatically no athlete from Russia are entitled to participate. The eligibility list based on criterias was then formed to allow "clean" athletes to attend. So indeed that case has widely different proceeding. I do agree fully, that IOC has (in their wisdom) made the rule WAY stricker than UCI or race organizers have ever done. But it screams loud and clear "Attending to the competition is not a human right. It is IOC to decide who gets in or not".

UCI and the race organizers have made the clause softer and they have even implemented a measurement (disrepute) to the clause which they need to prove. And as I've acknowledged earlier, that will be hard and the figth would be dirty, they may fail, or they may be too scared of failure to execute it. But that does not mean the rule for the organization and the possibility is not there.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

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.

You actually raise a very good point and that is to “context”.

The part FMK is missing is the Organization rules are not laws nor are they binding in any form. What they constitute is an “agreement”; firstly between teams and then individual riders. RCS are at full liberty to change their rules or to interpret them any way they see fit. Of course those rules can be challenged but I couldn’t see CAS falling on the side of the team or athlete. RCS is a private organization so as long as they don’t encroach on common law ref: Bosman, then they can do as they see fit and ban Froome.

We disagree Higgy.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

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.

You actually raise a very good point and that is to “context”.

The part FMK is missing is the Organization rules are not laws nor are they binding in any form. What they constitute is an “agreement”; firstly between teams and then individual riders. RCS are at full liberty to change their rules or to interpret them any way they see fit. Of course those rules can be challenged but I couldn’t see CAS falling on the side of the team or athlete. RCS is a private organization so as long as they don’t encroach on common law ref: Bosman, then they can do as they see fit and ban Froome.

I agree, and it was obvious this point was getting lost in the previous debate (which i chose to avoid until now because it was getting a bit too heated and emotional).

As i think FMK did try to point out, WADA/UCI rules were not being referred to. In fact, i'm not even sure you would/could call them rules at all.....i think they are more aptly referred to as terms and conditions of entry and participation to the event.

As long as they're not in any way discriminatory (on the grounds of things like race, religion etc etc) then i would agree the organisers can attach whatever terms and conditions they please to their event.

That's not to say that if applied, they couldn't be subject to some form of legal challenge.

Anyway, i don't want to get too deep into this debate...i think its mostly irrelevant as i don't think for one minute any race organisers this year will be trying too hard to exclude Froome, regardless of what they want the press and general public to believe.

I would respectfully refer you to the Valverde case and relevant legal opinion on the use of the disrepute clause.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

You actually raise a very good point and that is to “context”.

The part FMK is missing is the Organization rules are not laws nor are they binding in any form. What they constitute is an “agreement”; firstly between teams and then individual riders. RCS are at full liberty to change their rules or to interpret them any way they see fit. Of course those rules can be challenged but I couldn’t see CAS falling on the side of the team or athlete. RCS is a private organization so as long as they don’t encroach on common law ref: Bosman, then they can do as they see fit and ban Froome.

We disagree Higgy.

No, you disagree, not “we”.

There is no legal requirement or mandate to include Froome in the race. The organizers are at free will to apply their own rules however they may interpret them.

If it did come down to a legal challenge a judge would look to the ruleset for determination but more likely he/she send it out of the legal domain and back for sporting arbitration and CAS.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

 

[thehog]

There is no doctrine of precedence in sports law let alone a private organizations rules. Whatever that may have occurred with Valverde has no bearing on the Froome case.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

[/quote]I would respectfully refer you to the Valverde case and relevant legal opinion on the use of the disrepute clause.[/quote]

Let's talk about Valverde, and I really mean, let's talk and not debate - because I'm interested about it and have been doing some digging on that today.

I did see the fact UCI applied to the disrepute card, but nowhere in that document I saw a reference for 2.2.010bis. It wasn't refererred as clause, just generic "appeal" to reputation of the race. Instead UCI was leaning towards 9.2.002, which you (thanks for that) copied to say:

"9.2.002 A rider against whom an investigation was opened in relation to a fact which may cause a breach of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, will not be eligible for the World Championships or is not authorised to participate to the World Championships until the end of the suspension or until his definitive acquittal. In the event of a positive A Sample, this clause applies starting from the notification of the abnormal analysis result to the rider.

Unless otherwise decided by the anti-doping commission, the above paragraph is also applicable in the event of an investigation or a procedure regarding such a fact, opened in pursuance of a law or other regulation.

Specific cases are examined by the anti-doping commission or its president. Their decision is without appeal.

In addition to the disqualification, the licensee and his national federation will be respectively sanctioned by a fine of CHF 2,000 to CHF 10,000.

The present condition for participation, aims to protect the integrity, serenity and reputation of the World Championships. Its application does not prejudge the decision whether an anti-doping violation has occurred and shall not give rise to any claim in the events of acquittal.
(text introduced on 13.8.04)."


Now because of the lack of reference to 2.2.010bis on that appeal/decision, I tried to find what that clause said at that given time when the Valverde case was on, but could not find anything. Would you have a place where one could easily see the historical changes to the UCI regulations? The 2.2.10bis was introduce 2003, but (coincidently?) it was updated the same day of Valverde case CAS ruling (25th sept 2007) and again on 1st Jan 2009. I would be very interested to see if the Valverde case actually led to an update including the disrepute piece to that clause.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule. Neither has IOC. In the first place they banned whole Russia which was accepted by CAS. That was based on their Rule. The eligibility process was extra measurement to soften the rule based decision for clean athletes. But please, let's stop this. I agree we disagree.

Let's move on to my question about Valverde precendent above. It is fairly more interesting. Or maybe not

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Eh? You expect him to tell everyone he's ill in the middle of a race? Who would do that?

I think the expectation is that if reporters thought he was sick, they would have mentioned it. So far no one here has any such recollection, but we don’t all see all the reports. Safe to say it wasn’t a discussion point during the race, yet Froome acts as if everyone was asking about it. Obviously given Froome’s history of falsehoods and his interest in appearing to need a TUE, this appears to many as another lie.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Eh? You expect him to tell everyone he's ill in the middle of a race? Who would do that?

I think the expectation is that if reporters thought he was sick, they would have mentioned it. So far no one here has any such recollection, but we don’t all see all the reports. Safe to say it wasn’t a discussion point during the race, yet Froome acts as if everyone was asking about it. Obviously given Froome’s history of falsehoods and his interest in appearing to need a TUE, this appears to many as another lie.

He does lie in an affable way though. Sort of school boyish.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Eh? You expect him to tell everyone he's ill in the middle of a race? Who would do that?

I think the expectation is that if reporters thought he was sick, they would have mentioned it. So far no one here has any such recollection, but we don’t all see all the reports. Safe to say it wasn’t a discussion point during the race, yet Froome acts as if everyone was asking about it. Obviously given Froome’s history of falsehoods and his interest in appearing to need a TUE, this appears to many as another lie.

I thought i remembered, way back when this all came out pre Xmas, Froome mentioning in one of the few interviews he did at the time that he was asked by reporters if he was unwell after stage 17. At the time he said he denied it......can't find it anywhere now. Did i imagine it?

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Hello Martin. Would you mind posting a link so that I can listen to the interview please?

Apologies if it is already posted somewhere in here amongst the flying handbags.

https://audioboom.com/channel/thecyclingpodcast

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

I'm just listening to that Moore interview.

Absolutely laughable. The bloke (Dawg) is a complete and utter fraud. He says that loads of jurnos were asking if he was ill, as mentioned previously. Yet not ONE word of this was put out to the general public. He tells that many lies he doesn't understand reality now/

Eh? You expect him to tell everyone he's ill in the middle of a race? Who would do that?

So the jurnos who apparently see him on deaths door, almost on a ventolator if you beleive what he is saying, they wouldnt write that?

Aye you are correct, how silly of me.

'Today Froome looked good at the end of the stage, almost as if he had just walked into the breafast room ready for a day fishing'

:lol: :lol:

There was plenty of talk about him being ill. Here's Daniel Freibe asking him about the speculation that he's been ill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBT13_ELCM&t=54s

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

FMK says the IOC vs. Russian atheletes is not relevent as the proceeding of IOC is vastly different than Froome case (which I completely agree and have never said the proceeding is applicable), the notification that CAS makes in that decision backs up exactly what you say - the community (in that case IOC and the national commitees as members of IOC) has their organizational rules, and CAS aknowledged those rules. This point in that decision is the one I've been referring and is fully accepted by CAS in that decision.

As you seem to need this explaining to you: what are the UCI's rules WRT qualification (eligibility) for the Giro?

There is no rule.

Thank you for proving my point: you don't understand even the most basic rule here, a rule the UCI and race organisers fought long, hard and bitterly over.