Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Surely the French Court is just going to ask why didn't you do the same for any other rider with a pending CAS case that you did allow to race? I can't see how it can apply. Boonen won. I'm not sure of anyother cases where ASO blocked a rider. They blocked Astana iirc and I assume Astana didn't got to court?

"Team Sky has already appealed this decision to the National Olympic Committee of French Sport, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 3 with a decision set to made the following day."

Do we have the slightest idea how such a committee would be likely to decide? I don't really think that "surely" comes into it.

Hmmmm, this move by the ASO is entirely not surprising because, well, because ASO!

It will be a very interesting week to see how this all plays out. I remember the Boonen and Astana cases and they were very different, but still quite the circus. One seemed more related to bad boy/party image while the other was doping madness, so neither apply fully here. Opinions were definitely heavy on both ends of the spectrum though.

I do expect cycling's doping history will be a front and centre argument of the ASO, but whatevs.

It was bound to happen, even just for show. ASO showing strength and doing it at such a late stage doesn’t give Sky a lot of time to mobilise.

I'm quite confident both the ASO and Sky have had their legal teams working on this possible course of action, so I don't think the timing will present and issue for Sky or ASO in terms of the argument or counter argument. ASO's cost benefit is likely fairly comprehensive though, so anyone on the boards thinking this is a knee jerk reaction or it will cost them dearly is likely incorrect. I say likely because you never know, perhaps it will blow up on the ASO. But they will have assessed that risk. At the end of the day ASO is quite calculating ...

As someone pointed out on Twitter ASO couldn’t actually ban Froome until he was entered as an official participant thus the ban could only occur when Sky entered their final roster.

 

[spalco]

Hey, so what's with all the people here who called me an idiot for saying it's on the ASO to block Froome or not a couple of days ago, what you say now?

 

[brownbobby]

I wonder if anyone is going to ask the Giro organisers how much disrepute was bought to their race by Froome participation

 

[thehog]

Re:

Hey, so what's with all the people here who called me an idiot for saying it's on the ASO to block Froome or not a couple of days ago, what you say now?

Who were these people?

It was always going to happen but it wasn’t going to occur until ASO had allowed enough time for Froome/Sky and the UCI due process to play out. Now that ASO can see Froome hasn’t take that process seriously, it’s time to ban him.

 

[spalco]

Actually looking back again it was just one user.
I still was right though.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Finally our bots have a reason to be here in such numbers.
scramble!
/quote]
Are you finding it uncomfortable to read views that you do not share? You make that blindingly obvious.

Extra offence is caused by alluding to the Battle of Britain. Take a wider view of the world!

Take a wider view of the world! :lol:

Really, then in that case Sky, the UK based cycling team are doing exactly what the rest of the world does to win GTs. Dope and cheat!

:lol:

You can take that view (and I know you do)!

At least you did not appropriate an image of brave men who fought and died to preserve freedoms without which you may not have been posting here in English or probably any other language.

What a cheeky and insensitive way to seek to denigrate those who have the temerity to express an opinion.

That is the view, because since Armstrong won 7 in a row nothing has changed. Where is the fully independent, hugely funded doping agency to ensure that dopers and cheats dont win?

When did the culture to dope end?

What marked that end?

As for the image of brave men who fought and died. It was an international team that won WWII, not just the British. In fact if the free world was relying soley on the British to defeat nazi Germany we would all be typing in German.

But back to Froome. ASO see an opportunity to make some headlines for the start of the Tour while the World Cup is on or are sick of Sky/Froome/Motors and this is a shot across the bow.

There are adequate records as to how the Battle of Britain (the air battle for the defence of Britain that staved off invasion in 1940) was won and there's no need to go there or to go back over how the eventual war was won. Had Britain (mostly the RAF through those brave souls in the photo) not won that defence of Britain the rest of the war would have been a different thing and the free world would have been something or somewhere else. That's my point.

We don't want to see that image used against infrequent posters in that insensitive way and linked with the word "bots". I count myself as an infrequent poster as I do watch these pages and so far as I know I'm the only one currently posting who has not usually been bothering to post.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

There are adequate records as to how the Battle of Britain (the air battle for the defence of Britain that staved off invasion in 1940) was won and there's no need to go there or to go back over how the eventual war was won. Had Briain (mostly the RAF through those brave souls in the photo) not won that defence of Britain the rest of the war would have been a different thing and the free world would have been something or somewhere else. That's my point.

We don't want to see that image used against infrequent posters in that insensitive way and linked with the word "bots". I count myself as an infrequent poster as I do watch these pages and so far as I know I'm the only one currently posting who has not usually been bothering to post.

RAF was full of other nationals. Even had seperate international squadrons.

Dont be so nationalistic. That thinking got the Germans into no end of trouble. Someone posted an image. No one was direspected by that image. It was tongue firmly in the cheek. Humour, especially during wartime, is important. Get over it or better still get a sense of humour. It is only cycling and professional cycling, a complete circus!

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

There are adequate records as to how the Battle of Britain (the air battle for the defence of Britain that staved off invasion in 1940) was won and there's no need to go there or to go back over how the eventual war was won. Had Briain (mostly the RAF through those brave souls in the photo) not won that defence of Britain the rest of the war would have been a different thing and the free world would have been something or somewhere else. That's my point.

We don't want to see that image used against infrequent posters in that insensitive way and linked with the word "bots". I count myself as an infrequent poster as I do watch these pages and so far as I know I'm the only one currently posting who has not usually been bothering to post.

RAF was full of other nationals. Even had seperate international squadrons.

Dont be so nationalistic. That thinking got the Germans into no end of trouble. Someone posted an image. No one was direspected by that image. Get over it.

i know the history and you are right, but far from the point. I consider they were disrespected and so were any strays who have decided to post on this page.

 

[spalco]

You think this drags cycling out of the mud?

Timed for maximum effect, this makes a far bigger laughing stock out of the sport with the wider public who take an interest every July than any doping case ever could.

I can think of several motivations behind this play; the image of cycling isn’t one of them.

In terms of public perception, It’s akin to trying to put out a small fire by pouring petrol on it.

It's a desperate action, but I think it had to be done.

After cancelling Armstrong's 7 "wins", Landis' win, and then again Contador's stripped win, the risk of again having a dubious win is just to great to not even try.

The damage is on Froome for not having the balls to accept his punishment like a man.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

wrinklyvet wrote:
There are adequate records as to how the Battle of Britain (the air battle for the defence of Britain that staved off invasion in 1940) was won...

They saved my family's bacon too wrinklyvet.
I guess I should apologise: sorry.
I just couldn't resist the historic moment here on the forum.

Our pilots made real history, i agree. forgive me.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

wrinklyvet wrote:
There are adequate records as to how the Battle of Britain (the air battle for the defence of Britain that staved off invasion in 1940) was won...

They saved my family's bacon too wrinklyvet.
I guess I should apologise: sorry.
I just couldn't resist the historic moment here on the forum.

Our pilots made real history, i agree. forgive me.

Thank you. Generous man.

 

[Summoned]

Re:

I'm going to say this once.

In the Valverde case CAS relied on the principles of 'nulla poena sine culpa' (no punishment without guilt) + double jeopardy (you can't be punished twice for the same crime).

In simple English, should Froome win his salbutamol case, it would be wrong for CAS to have punished an innocent man. But equally CAS would be wrong to have punished him if he loses - the UCI will punish him then and you can only be punished once for an offence.

These are basic legal principles, the same for all cases. They don't change. How ASO propose getting past them will be interesting to see. Though we'll probably never be told.

Presumably the double jeopardy argument held because the UCI was attempting to prevent Valverde from riding the Worlds as well as seeking to institute a ban on him? Would it make a difference in the case of Froome riding this year's Tour that the ASO is acting separately from the body conducting the doping proceedings against Froome? As such, he would be potentially subject to being punished twice, but as it would be separate bodies acting that principle would not apply?

This would not pertain to the other half of the reasoning behind the CAS decision of course.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Actually looking back again it was just one user.
I still was right though.

There have been many opinions. I think Froome not submitting himself to the pharmacokinetic study will hurt him. It shows that his real intent has been to delay. I also note the term “disrupte” is not used, rather its “reputation”, thus the likelihood of him riding is lower than I originally thought.

 

[Alpe73]

I'm glad with the ASO stand on Froome- too late & controversial to be well understood, but certainly they have the right to prevent him from racing Le Tour, mostly because the UCI forced their hand to act in such way due to the long decision on his case. We simply cannot have in Pro-Cycling cases like Froome's to be dragged for months due to money & politics, putting races results in limbo, just because lawyers & sponsors have powers to maneuver doping cases to make the most of it in favor of their clients, as the situation fits in.......

Froome should have never been allowed to start Il Giro to begin with, Let alone Win it and now go to Le Tour with impunity ready to win it as well.

There is nothing more political than this ASO decision and those who distrust lawyers and money will be disappointed to note that again it will be beneficial to be a sports lawyer! I think the idea that lawyers manipulate the length or complexity of cases to feather their own nests is attractive and occasionally true, but do you have to be a lawyer to take a more dispassionate view and particularly that someone in Froome's position is entitled to do what it takes to achieve what seems best, within the rules?

Well, ASO is "entitled" to do what it takes to protect their race from another scandal-within the rules too-and they're simply exercising the right to prevent him from starting Le Tour, according to Article 29 below:

Article 29 (ASO)
(in compliance with UCI),
“ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in

– or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”

I don't dispute any of that but as I am sure you know I was making a different point. However, whether ASO doing what they are entitled to try to do will actually improve the situation is a moot point. Some will think so. I don't happen to do so. Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Moving on from that, those who don't like watching Froome because he is an ugly rider, is from Sky, is allegedly doping (or whatever) greatly amuse me when they say that because of what ASO has done they will watch the Tour again (and otherwise would not have done). Even accepting their view as expressed like that is genuine, do they see nothing in the sprints, the breakaways and the question of whether they will stick, the tactics and even the wonderful scenery and photography? Is it all about the yellow? Ultimately perhaps it is in many ways, but there's so much more than that.

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

 

[spalco]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

 

[thehog]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

...or G wins the Tour!!

 

[Benotti69]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

:lol:


The only people who belive in the authenticity of Sky/Froome are the naive newbies and those with various mental impairments.

When a team talks of being the most transparent in the history of the sport but are the least, you know they are cheating/doping.

Cycling fans know the score.

 

[Alpe73]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

Because most fans ... millions of them ... don’t know about ASO and/or don’t give a fiddler’s feck about ... what ASO thinks. Same threats around Giro. Italian fans were great and Froome probably ended up with a net gain of Italian fans.

Clinic has a problem about keeping it real. Disrepute? Gimme a break. :lol:

 

[spalco]

:lol:


The only people who belive in the authenticity of Sky/Froome are the naive newbies and those with various mental impairments.

When a team talks of being the most transparent in the history of the sport but are the least, you know they are cheating/doping.

Cycling fans know the score.

That's not the point, and it's not a laughing matter really, if you care about the sport.

There's a big difference in public perception between "knowing" the race winner is on something *wink* *wink*, or having his results officially stricken from the record (or here the race organisers calling him dirty).

 

[Summoned]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

Because most fans ... millions of them ... don’t know about ASO and/or don’t give a fiddler’s feck about ... what ASO thinks. Same threats around Giro. Italian fans were great and Froome probably ended up with a net gain of Italian fans.

Clinic has a problem about keeping it real. Disrepute? Gimme a break. :lol:

Do you think the ASO is acting in bad faith? Do you think they believe that having Froome ride the Tour, wear the yellow on the podium, and then have to strip him of the jersey would have a negative effect on the Tour? Note that I am not saying that it would, but asking if it is reasonable to believe the ASO thinks this.

 

[spalco]

Because most fans ... millions of them ... don’t know about ASO and/or don’t give a fiddler’s feck about ... what ASO thinks. Same threats around Giro. Italian fans were great and Froome probably ended up with a net gain of Italian fans.

Clinic has a problem about keeping it real. Disrepute? Gimme a break. :lol:

I wasn't surprised about Froome's treatment in Italy. Italian cycling fans are much more tolerant in this regard (or maybe less hypocritical) than the French; and I guess there's still some anglo-french thing going on with some people too.

And absolutely this controversy, whatever the outcome, will be known to everybody who tunes into the Tour de France this year, casual fan or hardcore.

 

[Alpe73]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

:lol:


The only people who belive in the authenticity of Sky/Froome are the naive newbies and those with various mental impairments.

When a team talks of being the most transparent in the history of the sport but are the least, you know they are cheating/doping.

Cycling fans know the score.

A multiple GT winner vs an evangelical preacher with an internet addiction. Hmmmmm. :lol:

 

[Koronin]

Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute

In the now infamous Valverde judgement CAS made the point that the UCI were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds by trying to ban the Spaniard than Valverde was. So, yeah, I'd expect Sky to make this point. But, with French CAS not publishing judgements, we'll likely never know if they do.

But the difference is that Valverde never failed an anti-doping test and never had an abnormal test. His ban stems from linking his DNA to an Operation Puerto blood bag. So in many ways his case can't be used for precedent because it's so different from most cases.

 

[thehog]

Can ASO be charged with bringing themselves and cycling into disrepute

In the now infamous Valverde judgement CAS made the point that the UCI were causing more damage to the Stuttgart Worlds by trying to ban the Spaniard than Valverde was. So, yeah, I'd expect Sky to make this point. But, with French CAS not publishing judgements, we'll likely never know if they do.

But the difference is that Valverde never failed an anti-doping test and never had an abnormal test. His ban stems from linking his DNA to an Operation Puerto blood bag. So in many ways his case can't be used for precedent because it's so different from most cases.

Fully agree. Two very different cases and circumstances.

 

[Rollthedice]

Exclusions in these circumstances do not improve the quality of the competition or the reputation of the race..

Indeed.

Rightly or wrongly .... this will open up ASO to all sorts of accusations .... from “ robbing spectators of a chance to see Froome get a legitimate thumping “ to “attempting to set it up for one of their own.”

Totally silly move by ASO.

Actually the worst case isn't even that (although the accusation will no doubt be made, especially if for example Bardet gets into yellow...).

The worst case is if Froome wins his appeal against ASO, and then wins the Tour de France. If even the race organisers explicitely say he's disreputable, then why should anyone else believe in the authenticity of his win?

That would really make the sport look like a joke, regardless of the outcome of Froome's AAF case.

The real worst case is this, Froome wins his appeal then wins TdF, then he looses the TdF at the anti doping tribunal but wins it back at CAS. By that time Froome already has won five maybe six GTs in a row, salbutamol is taken off the WADA list and Lappartient is the president of France.