Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Baldinger]

And now the tweet has been deleted.

 

[bambino]

Re:

And now the tweet has been deleted.

Denial tactics gone wrong.

Anybody screenshot?

 

[budegan]

Re:

And now the tweet has been deleted.

Fake tweet

 

[CTQ]

https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21

Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

And now the tweet has been deleted.

Really? It's pretty bad then. Maybe Morgan called him up, poor Froomey is ruining his case with these stupid tweets.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21

Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.

Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.

 

[CTQ]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21

Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.

Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.

some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21

Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.

Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.

some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS

The way two of the write-ups I read stated it was that the UCI rejected Froome's argument and has sent the case to the tribunal.

 

[wirral]

Mike Morgan challenging every aspect of the testing procedure. This will easily spin out beyond the start of the Tour. Looks like Dog and his paralegal and psychologist, "Determined" Michelle Cound-Froome are going all in. Big pay day for 2018, ban at the end of 2018, and then sail off into the sunset and retire to take up ironmans. (Or Morgan succeeds in finding that the tester's shoes didn't have latex covers)

 

[CTQ]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21

Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.

Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.

some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS

The way two of the write-ups I read stated it was that the UCI rejected Froome's argument and has sent the case to the tribunal.

.

i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.

still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/jeuneguillou/status/979829315398520834?s=21

Dear english-speaking friends : Seems our story was somehow lost in translation. #Froome case is only forwarded by the UCI to its independent antidoping tribunal. This step was expected. Case will go to CAS if Froome / Wada appeals the antidoping tribunal's decision.

Don't know who misunderstood, it's pretty clear from what I posted.

some reported as if the case had been heard, that the evidence submitted by Froome had been rejected, and that the case was now referred to the CAS

The way two of the write-ups I read stated it was that the UCI rejected Froome's argument and has sent the case to the tribunal.

.

i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.

still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.

So we are waiting on whether Froome accepts the "Acceptance of Consequences" ? If he hasn't got a good case/argument and doesn't sound like he has, it would be better if he took whatever ban they suggest, for him and the giro and tdf.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.

still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.

That seems to be right. I think this case would inevitably move to this stage. Once the case became public it would always have to be settled by a full tribunal regardless of what evidence Froome provided.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.

still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.

That seems to be right. I think this case would inevitably move to this stage. Once the case became public it would always have to be settled by a full tribunal regardless of what evidence Froome provided.

That sounds right as to the stage it's at. I agree that once this became public this was a definite outcome.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

i think they were at the stage where it’s the LADS who refer the case if no acceptance
Upon notification, the rider can ask for his/her B sample to be analysed. If the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, or if the rider does not request the opening of the B sample, the LADS gives the rider the opportunity to provide an explanation for the Adverse Analytical Finding. The LADS will then open disciplinary proceedings and offer the rider an “Acceptance of Consequences” taking into account the rider’s explanations, if any. If the rider refuses the Acceptance of Consequences, the matter is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal for adjudication.

still no decision , the case can’t be referred to CAS.

That seems to be right. I think this case would inevitably move to this stage. Once the case became public it would always have to be settled by a full tribunal regardless of what evidence Froome provided.

That sounds right as to the stage it's at. I agree that once this became public this was a definite outcome.

I said somewhere up this thread that even if Froome had 100% certain evidence* of his innocence that this would have to go to a tribunal due to its public profile.

*I don't imagine he has such evidence BTW.

 

[Merckx index]

As CTQ says, there is a very clear path laid out in the rules: Positive test - LADS - Acceptance of Consequences - appoint judge - Tribunal - hearing - decision. What is remarkable is that till now no public story, not even the interview with Lappartient, has pointed this out, then told us unambiguously exactly where in the process Froome is. This latest news just confirms that we are at the Tribunal stage, but even this leaves several important questions unanswered: 1) did the Tribunal begin in the middle of February as originally reported (and neither confirmed nor denied by Froome), or only more recently? It makes a big difference in estimating when a decision will be announced. 2) Has there been a hearing yet? Probably not, but again, no clarity. 3) Was there an Acceptance of Consequences that Froome rejected? One assumes there must have been for the case to go to the Tribunal, and this latest story does say that LADS rejected Froome's explanation, but an Acceptance of Consequences letter proposes a specific ban, and we've heard nothing about this. If there was a ban, the length and timing of it would be a very strong clue to how the judge would probably eventually rule.

From CN:

"I have no evidence that he is deliberately delaying things. He is trying to defend a number of arguments, it's his right," the UCI president David Lappartient said in the Le Monde report. "I do not see what he would gain from waiting, because if it is to race and be sanctioned after, for what reason?"

Even for Lappartient, this is a new low. The case might drag on to the Tour, and yet there is no evidence Froome is trying to delay? He's trying to defend a number of arguments (which in effect means he has none)? Has nothing to gain from delay, as if he wouldn't have everything to gain if any ban was proactive?

 

[Parker]

Re:

As CTQ says, there is a very clear path laid out in the rules:
Positive test - LADS - Acceptance of Consequences - appoint judge - Tribunal - hearing - decision.

What is remarkable is that till now no public story, not even the interview with Lappartient, has pointed this out, then told us unambiguously exactly where in the process Froome is.

This latest news just confirms that we are at the Tribunal stage, but even this leaves several important questions unanswered:

1) did the Tribunal begin in the middle of February as originally reported (and neither confirmed nor denied by Froome), or only more recently? It makes a big difference in estimating when a decision will be announced.

2) Has there been a hearing yet? Probably not, but again, no clarity.

3) Was there an Acceptance of Consequences that Froome rejected? One assumes there must have been for the case to go to the Tribunal, and this latest story does say that LADS rejected Froome's explanation, but an Acceptance of Consequences letter proposes a specific ban, and we've heard nothing about this. If there was a ban, the length and timing of it would be a very strong clue to how the judge would probably eventually rule.

Two points.

1. Pargraphs. Please present your decent in a better form. See above.

2. Unusually for cycling, this process seems to be fairly confidential. The reporting on the case has been full of speculation to fill copy. I'm not sure you can believe any of it.

 

[CTQ]

the case is now at the stage 4.
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

4- The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is an independent tribunal established by the UCI in January 2015, to adjudicate the international cases in a professional and consistent way (under the previous rules, cases were delegated to the relevant National Federation for disciplinary action). The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal will decide whether the rider committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and what the applicable sanction shall be. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal’s decisions can be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) not only by the rider and the UCI, but also by the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organisation as well as by WADA.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Two points.

1. Pargraphs [sic]. Please present your decent [sic] in a better form. See above.

Several years ago, you criticized me for lengthy posts. Now I try to condense them, and you're griping about that? You not like, you no read.

2. Unusually [sic] for cycling, this process seems to be fairly confidential. The reporting on the case has been full of speculation to fill copy. I'm not sure you can believe any of it.

Yes, there has been a lot of speculation. But at least when Lappartient reports on what has happened, he should have credibility. He should know what he's talking about.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Two points.

1. Pargraphs [sic]. Please present your decent [sic] in a better form. See above.

Several years ago, you criticized me for lengthy posts. Now I try to condense them, and you're griping about that? You not like, you no read.

2. Unusually [sic] for cycling, this process seems to be fairly confidential. The reporting on the case has been full of speculation to fill copy. I'm not sure you can believe any of it.

Yes, there has been a lot of speculation. But at least when Lappartient reports on what has happened, he should have credibility. He should know what he's talking about.

1. I was just giving you some advice. You are one of the few posters worth reading on this forum. But clumping it altogether in one paragraph, something will inevitably be lost

2. I don't think this latest development has any comment from Lapparient or any named UCI official. The reporting on this case has been low on facts. Personally, I wouldn't deduce anything from any of it.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

the case is now at the stage 4.
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

4- The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is an independent tribunal established by the UCI in January 2015, to adjudicate the international cases in a professional and consistent way (under the previous rules, cases were delegated to the relevant National Federation for disciplinary action). The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal will decide whether the rider committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and what the applicable sanction shall be. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal’s decisions can be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) not only by the rider and the UCI, but also by the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organisation as well as by WADA.

Thanks for explaining! (Also @Merckx Index)

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

And now the tweet has been deleted.

Really? It's pretty bad then. Maybe Morgan called him up, Michelle is ruining his case with these stupid tweets.

Ftfy

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

So we are waiting on whether Froome accepts the "Acceptance of Consequences" ? If he hasn't got a good case/argument and doesn't sound like he has, it would be better if he took whatever ban they suggest, for him and the giro and tdf.

Of course he isn't going to, it's in his advantage to delay this until after TDF

 

[Blanco]

Re:

As CTQ says, there is a very clear path laid out in the rules: Positive test - LADS - Acceptance of Consequences - appoint judge - Tribunal - hearing - decision. What is remarkable is that till now no public story, not even the interview with Lappartient, has pointed this out, then told us unambiguously exactly where in the process Froome is. This latest news just confirms that we are at the Tribunal stage, but even this leaves several important questions unanswered: 1) did the Tribunal begin in the middle of February as originally reported (and neither confirmed nor denied by Froome), or only more recently? It makes a big difference in estimating when a decision will be announced. 2) Has there been a hearing yet? Probably not, but again, no clarity. 3) Was there an Acceptance of Consequences that Froome rejected? One assumes there must have been for the case to go to the Tribunal, and this latest story does say that LADS rejected Froome's explanation, but an Acceptance of Consequences letter proposes a specific ban, and we've heard nothing about this. If there was a ban, the length and timing of it would be a very strong clue to how the judge would probably eventually rule.

From CN:

"I have no evidence that he is deliberately delaying things. He is trying to defend a number of arguments, it's his right," the UCI president David Lappartient said in the Le Monde report. "I do not see what he would gain from waiting, because if it is to race and be sanctioned after, for what reason?"

Even for Lappartient, this is a new low. The case might drag on to the Tour, and yet there is no evidence Froome is trying to delay? He's trying to defend a number of arguments (which in effect means he has none)? Has nothing to gain from delay, as if he wouldn't have everything to gain if any ban was proactive?

Except Vegni's 2 millions

 

[meat puppet]

Of course he will not accept. That would imply admitting doping and his legacy is at stake.

This is all about perception and narrative. He will play dumb and wish to escape on a technicality, or at most receive a ban for an "abnormality", which of course has nothing to do with him mainlining everything under the sun.

 

[70kmph]

Haas has interviewed Froome before during the anti doping investigation called Circ

He also gave Ricco 12 years for 'failing to demonstrate a lack of impartiality'