Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[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:

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.

To be clear ... I don’t ‘know’ that ASO is acting in bad faith ... is trying to ‘stick it to’ Froome.

But ... based on the similar circumstances of disrepute fear around the Giro, based on the fact that UCI rules permit Froome to ride ... plus the perfect storm for ASO to be tempted to play the “Budd Rule ... I am therefore suspicious of ASO’s motivations. Would like to see their legitimate predictions on branding being negatively affected by allowing Froome to ride.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

: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).

The vast majority of sport fans that have an interest in sport, believe cycling is dirty as the mainstream press only writes about cycling at times of doping. Cycling fans know the sport is dirty.

If you don't know then you are not using logical reasoning. Some faces have changed in the sport but how it operates and the culture to cheat have not changed.

It really is a joke and laughing is the only answer.

The only sad thing is that other sports fans like to think their sport is not like cycling, when the reality is that all sport has its own doping cultures.

 

[rick james]

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!

Yea!!!!!its all tongue and cheek, what ever next, a wee dance on the tomb of the unknown soldier, or how about a wee jig around the cenotaph....no shame from some

 

[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.

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.

To be clear ... I don’t ‘know’ that ASO is acting in bad faith ... is trying to ‘stick it to’ Froome.

But ... based on the similar circumstances of disrepute fear around the Giro, based on the fact that UCI rules permit Froome to ride ... plus the perfect storm for ASO to be tempted to play the “Budd Rule ... I am therefore suspicious of ASO’s motivations. Would like to see their legitimate predictions on branding being negatively affected by allowing Froome to ride.

Or simply protecting their race

 

[hfer07]

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!!

That's what I'm afraid of if ASO gets to ban Froome......

 

[bigcog]

Re: 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.

Big miscalculation by Sky in not submitting team earlier as presumably they wont be able to appeal due to lack of time if the decision goes against them on Tuesday, assuming ASO wouldn't have stopped him racing at the last minute in any case. I can't see him riding. Probably for the best as some deranged 'fan' would probably do something crazy in any case.

 

[fmk_RoI]

To be clear ... I don’t ‘know’ that ASO is acting in bad faith ... is trying to ‘stick it to’ Froome.

But ... based on the similar circumstances of disrepute fear around the Giro, based on the fact that UCI rules permit Froome to ride ... plus the perfect storm for ASO to be tempted to play the “Budd Rule ... I am therefore suspicious of ASO’s motivations. Would like to see their legitimate predictions on branding being negatively affected by allowing Froome to ride.

The only difference between the ASO version of the disrepute rule and the UCI version that applies to all other races is the appeal route (TAS/CAS vs French CAS). Lappartient has said that the UCI can't block Froome. Are the differences between Swiss law and French law so vast that ASO can win what the UCI cannot?

If those differences are only minor then you have to ask what is ASO playing for if not the win?

As in the Boonen case, are they being pressured to act (either by government ("How's that for Brexit dividend, rose bouef?") or by a French broadcaster concerned about a fall off in viewing figures)?

Are they simply intent on showing they did everything they could and the fault is in the rules, so a WADA/UCI problem?

Are they trying to scare Sky, playing chicken, inflaming the roadside fans, endangering the peloton, and so trying to force Sky to do 'the right thing' if not before the race starts then once the craziness kicks off (shades of Bartali and his hasty retreat after the col d'Aspin in 1950)?

WRT bad faith, though, note that Sky played the rules on filing their line up, waiting until the last minute. We'll still get a decision earlier than in the Boonen case (IIRC) but Sky have not left ASO much wiggle room.

 

[Escarabajo]

Agree with ASO on this.

However I would have liked to see all favorites for the win in full racing so there are no excuses for the winner.

 

[Robert5091]

Is there an element of ASO covering their a**es here with regards to Froome's safety?

 

[Alpe73]

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.

To be clear ... I don’t ‘know’ that ASO is acting in bad faith ... is trying to ‘stick it to’ Froome.

But ... based on the similar circumstances of disrepute fear around the Giro, based on the fact that UCI rules permit Froome to ride ... plus the perfect storm for ASO to be tempted to play the “Budd Rule ... I am therefore suspicious of ASO’s motivations. Would like to see their legitimate predictions on branding being negatively affected by allowing Froome to ride.

Or simply protecting their race

Protection is a normal 'fear' reaction to a perceived threat.

If the perceived threat is judged as real and measurable (in it's likelihood to inflict damage) ... then kudos to any entity to have protected their interest.


If the perceived threat is exaggerated ... or fabricated for other gain ... pity on them (ASO) for their neurosis ... or shame on them for their disingenuous motives.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Agree with ASO on this.

However I would have liked to see all favorites for the win in full racing so there are no excuses for the winner.

It's the ONLY way, man! We all know it. The rest is just silly drama.

 

[MartinGT]

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!!

That's what I'm afraid of if ASO gets to ban Froome......

I can hear it now. Kirby saying 'G' won it due to his track background.

 

[thehog]

Re: 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.

Big miscalculation by Sky in not submitting team earlier as presumably they wont be able to appeal due to lack of time if the decision goes against them on Tuesday, assuming ASO wouldn't have stopped him racing at the last minute in any case. I can't see him riding. Probably for the best as some deranged 'fan' would probably do something crazy in any case.

Agreed, I can’t see him riding, either by Sky falling on the sword or being barred. It’s not like Sky don’t have options. Thomas is strong enough to at least compete.

Come Tuesday England out of the World Cup and no Froome

 

[Koronin]

Here's another question. The ASO also owns la Vuelta and they are already starting their push to get a decision before la Vuelta starts. If the ASO is able to make this stick for the Tour, would then do it again with la Vuelta?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Here's another question. The ASO also owns la Vuelta and they are already starting their push to get a decision before la Vuelta starts. If the ASO is able to make this stick for the Tour, would then do it again with la Vuelta?

ASO only have the disrepute rule at the Tour.

 

[gillan1969]

you can take the p*ss for a bit...but you can't have Froome being the equal of Mercxk and Hinault...they know it...if the testing regime is that poor that it can't get him they are required to take matters into their own hands....good

 

[dacooley]

you can take the p*ss for a bit...but you can't have Froome being the equal of Mercxk and Hinault...they know it...if the testing regime is that poor that it can't get him they are required to take matters into their own hands....good

Froome already being in pantheon of greats is a real issue

 

[the delgados]

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!!

That's what I'm afraid of if ASO gets to ban Froome......

I can hear it now. Kirby saying 'G' won it due to his track background.

Hey, hey! I'm watching here.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Is there an element of ASO covering their a**es here with regards to Froome's safety?

I think if his safety were their prime concern, they would say nothing about the issue at all. It might be that if he wins the appeal on Tuesday, the anger at him will be even more cranked up.

If protecting Frrome were the prime issue, I presume they would have got the police to tell Sky that they cannot guarantee his safety.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

By what principle does the French Olympic committee have jurisdiction on this? The French Cycling Federation may be subject to them, but not ASO.

 

[thehog]

Re:

By what principle does the French Olympic committee have jurisdiction on this? The French Cycling Federation may be subject to them, but not ASO.

Because that’s what the rules state. Do you want it be the Privy Court?

 

[spalco]

If protecting Frrome were the prime issue, I presume they would have got the police to tell Sky that they cannot guarantee his safety.

Actually i revise my earlier comment, this would be the worst case scenario. If france can't guarantee the safety of one of their premier, historic sporting events, they can just pack up as a country.

 

[thehog]

If protecting Frrome were the prime issue, I presume they would have got the police to tell Sky that they cannot guarantee his safety.

Actually i revise my earlier comment, this would be the worst case scenario. If france can't guarantee the safety of one of their premier, historic sporting events, they can just pack up as a country.

You are aware that the Tour de France takes place not in a stadium but outside on public roads over thousands of kilometers?

 

[ice&fire]

If protecting Frrome were the prime issue, I presume they would have got the police to tell Sky that they cannot guarantee his safety.

Actually i revise my earlier comment, this would be the worst case scenario. If france can't guarantee the safety of one of their premier, historic sporting events, they can just pack up as a country.

They couldn't prevent Merckx being punched and they're still doing ok as a country

 

[Alpe73]

If protecting Frrome were the prime issue, I presume they would have got the police to tell Sky that they cannot guarantee his safety.

Actually i revise my earlier comment, this would be the worst case scenario. If france can't guarantee the safety of one of their premier, historic sporting events, they can just pack up as a country.

+1