Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Pantani_lives]

Aso has taken the right decision, although they should have made their point earlier. I predicted in January that they would exclude him a few days before the Tour. Now I hope the exclusion will be confirmed on Tuesday, but I'm not confident about that.

 

[Cookster15]

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.

I agree with this. I think the problem with ASO enforcing this threat is the precedent isn't exactly like 2008. Back then I think Astana riders were already banned or found positive? This time nobody has been found positive and we only suspect wrongdoing.

But if Froome is really innocent Sky would be screaming that the AAF process be sped up - are they? 1500 pages seems an excuse to me. Legal obfuscation. Some say Salbutamol AAFs historically take a long time. So what? Where there is a will there is a way (to speed up). My 2 cents worth only.

 

[jmdirt]

I'm not a CF hater nor am I a fan. At this point, this isn't CF's 'fault', why hasn't a decision been made? UCI/WADA/CAS... come on! ASO isn't blocking CF, they are blocking a potential problem that should have been handled months ago.

 

[Jagartrott]

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.

No-one can *guarantee* anyone's safety.

 

[lartiste]

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

Just Brittain pack up from EU , it is not possible to protect someone who lacks common sense.

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Prudy again all but ruling out whacking Froome with the disrepute stick (and all but admitting why):

Legally, he can [start]

Interestingly, while still passing the blame back to the UCI he's now making it clear that it is not the fault of ASO's man in Aigle, Lappy:

"It's terrible that the sporting authorities have not managed to solve this problem before the start of the world's biggest race. I won't say anything more but of course, rules have to be modified.

"An abnormal control doesn't mean anything to a large public. It has to be black or white, positive or negative."

Prudhomme, once a journalist, would not blame the situation on the UCI's president, David Lappartient, who took over the position from Brian Cookson last autumn.

"He has already changed a lot of things but he couldn't change everything", Prudhomme said.

Time, I think, for Cooky to defend his tarnished reputation...

(A part of me does wish ASO did play the disrepute card. Just to see the looks on faces when CAS laughed it out of court.)

Your wish came true it seems..

 

[Koronin]

Re: 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.

I agree with this. I think the problem with ASO enforcing this threat is the precedent isn't exactly like 2008. Back then I think Astana riders were already banned or found positive? This time nobody has been found positive and we only suspect wrongdoing.

But if Froome is really innocent Sky would be screaming that the AAF process be sped up - are they? 1500 pages seems an excuse to me. Legal obfuscation. Some say Salbutamol AAFs historically take a long time. So what? Where there is a will there is a way (to speed up). My 2 cents worth only.

His test was positive, so technically no difference.

 

[Ripper]

Hey, here's one thing. Let's say Sky overturn this. Regardless of appeal it likely remains overturned by the start of le Tour. I can foresee some awkward moments, especially if he is doing well.

On a slight tangent, this could not have been a surprise for Sky's legal team. They had to be very prepared for this. If not, they will have really dropped the ball.

 

[Ripper]

Re: 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.

I agree with this. I think the problem with ASO enforcing this threat is the precedent isn't exactly like 2008. Back then I think Astana riders were already banned or found positive? This time nobody has been found positive and we only suspect wrongdoing.

But if Froome is really innocent Sky would be screaming that the AAF process be sped up - are they? 1500 pages seems an excuse to me. Legal obfuscation. Some say Salbutamol AAFs historically take a long time. So what? Where there is a will there is a way (to speed up). My 2 cents worth only.

Erm, yes, someone has been found positive. Froome. It follows a different process and we all get that, but he was positive

 

[armchairclimber]

It's just more circus. Nothing more, nothing less. The sheet sniffers in the clinic can get all exited and the Froome fans can get excited and the broader public get excited because the narrow bunch that shout on the internet get excited and we have ourselves a newsworthy spectacle before a single pedal has been stroked. Genius. The clinic gets played again.

 

[Benotti69]

Nice piece by Whittle

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/tour-bites-back-at-chris-froome-after-farce-of-lance-armstrongs-return

Last Paragraph puts the boot in.

 

[hazaran]

Re:

Nice piece by Whittle

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/tour-bites-back-at-chris-froome-after-farce-of-lance-armstrongs-return

Last Paragraph puts the boot in.

The boot.. in the authors face? Because obviously the passport violation of Roson always triggers a provisional suspension.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: 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?

Which rules?

I would have thought that the competent authority would be either French civil courts or CAS.

Why on earth would you think I would want it to be the "privy court" (by which I presume you mean the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)?

If you don't know an answer, that's fine: we are in the same boat, and we might both benefit from someone else's knowledge. A sarcastic trolling response is never the appropriate one.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Nice piece by Whittle

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/tour-bites-back-at-chris-froome-after-farce-of-lance-armstrongs-return

Last Paragraph puts the boot in.

The boot.. in the authors face? Because obviously the passport violation of Roson always triggers a provisional suspension.

Nope.

The team with a zero doping tolerance policy are caught with their pants down. Whittle cannot say it, but Sky lied and are lying with "Brailsofrd's hubris" another term for sociopath.

:lol:

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Nice piece by Whittle

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/tour-bites-back-at-chris-froome-after-farce-of-lance-armstrongs-return

Last Paragraph puts the boot in.

The boot.. in the authors face? Because obviously the passport violation of Roson always triggers a provisional suspension.

The bigger question on Roson is why did it take a year and a half to even give a provisional suspension? In truth that just proves how slowly they do anything.

 

[Merckx index]

There’s one solution to this that no one is talking about. Haas could announce that any ban will be proactive, and that the decision will come after the Tour. That would be unprecedented, and would probably break some rule, but it would definitely remove the possibility that Froome’s results would later be negated.

In fact, any ban probably will be proactive, and if Haas hasn’t come to a decision yet, he probably won’t until the Tour is over. As I’ve pointed out before, it generally takes several weeks between coming to a decision and completing the report. If Haas knows the decision now, but hasn’t completed the report, he could advise Froome that the decision would come during the Tour, and assuming it’s a ban, he would have to be removed from the race. In that way, he would effectively dissuade Froome from starting. This could be done in private.

Since Froome has stated he plans to ride the Tour, my guess is that Haas hasn't come to a decision yet. Assuming that's the case, the report would probably not be finished until after the Tour. So Haas could solve this problem by just stating publicly what he privately knows to be the case. Again, that's probably against the rules, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

Though I think Froome should be allowed to ride pending a decision, let’s be very clear why this is taking so long. It’s almost certainly Froome and his team who are dragging out the case. UCI rejected Froome's explanation months ago. Everything since by Froome's team amounts to a Hail Mary operation, with the added benefit that delaying the decision ensures that Froome can keep riding. From that perspective, ASO's move is pushback. If you're going to use the rules to delay the decision to your benefit, we're going to use the rules to ensure that delaying is not to your benefit. If Froome can't ride, it suddenly becomes in his interest for the case to conclude as soon as possible. So who's the one helping resolve this case as quickly as possible, Froome or ASO?

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Nice piece by Whittle

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/tour-bites-back-at-chris-froome-after-farce-of-lance-armstrongs-return

Last Paragraph puts the boot in.

Total crock of Drama queen island rehash! :lol:

 

[King Boonen]

Re: 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?

Which rules?

I would have thought that the competent authority would be either French civil courts or CAS.

Why on earth would you think I would want it to be the "privy court" (by which I presume you mean the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council)?

If you don't know an answer, that's fine: we are in the same boat, and we might both benefit from someone else's knowledge. A sarcastic trolling response is never the appropriate one.

It’s not the Olympic committee, it’s the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport.

UCI regulations 2.2.010bis

 

[Alpe73]

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

Ahhh ... no one’s taking the piss, Gillian ... it’s the real deal, man.

Merck, Hinault, Big Mig, (maybe Froome) and even Lance.

It’s all gone down ... or about to go down, perhaps. Out of eveyone’s hands. You can try to protect whatever it is you’re trying to protect ... in your own mind ... but you’re just trying to remove etchings that are forever in stone.

“Everybody Knows.” L. C.

 

[Merckx index]

Despite the best efforts of the mods, doping talk is sneaking into the Pro Road Racing Forum. Maybe this is allowed, as sometimes it's difficult to discuss riders without mentioning doping, or maybe the mods don't always notice. But in any case, I've seen some posts that I feel are mis-characterizing UCI/WADA, and rather than respond in the Froome thread in that forum, and risk the wrath of the mods, I will do it here.

at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek!

UCI made the decision to ban him months ago. It was Froome who rejected the decision and in effect appealed it to the Tribunal, where months can go by just by submitting documents that may have very little bearing on the decision. The delay is on him, because he has nothing to lose by delaying, and a great deal to gain. If Froome had not been allowed to ride until a decision was made, this case probably would have been over a long time ago.

And we just got another case (the Roson case) that proves they can't do anything in a timely manner. That case dates back to Jan 2017 and they just provisionally suspended him. They still haven't even given him a real decision yet.

This is not any evidence at all of not being able to act in a timely manner. Roson has been suspended less than a week, he was just notified of the problem. The fact that it concerns a sample over a year and half old is irrelevant; WADA now tests samples that are years old, when new tests become available that weren't available earlier. There is nothing wrong with declaring an AAF in a very old sample as long as the rider does not have to be suspended until he is actually notified of the AAF.

Maybe there was a slip up, the sample was forgotten and only analyzed much later, or its analysis lost. But it's also possible that the analysis was reinterpreted in light of information that wasn't available before.

Madiot:

Had it concerned a low-key rider, the case would have been resolved a long time ago. It could have been solved by Froome himself, he only had to say: 'listen, I made a mistake in the dosage, I take cognizance of it, I make a public apology and I accept a penalty.' At the limit, the penalty could have been… I won't say negotiated, but adjusted, had Froome and his team been in good faith. On the other hand, they've taken the case purely on legal basis."

 

[Alpe73]

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

Ahhh ... no one’s taking the piss, Gillian ... it’s the real deal, man.

Merck, Hinault, Big Mig, (maybe Froome) and even Lance.

It’s all gone down ... or about to go down, perhaps. Out of eveyone’s hands. You can try to protect whatever it is you’re trying to protect ... in your own mind ... but you’re just trying to remove etchings that are forever in stone.

Everybody Knows.” L. C.

I'm not sure even you know who you love most. I'll go for yourself (followed just behind by Froomey). More pretentious drivel. Facts, ASO have banned Froome from TDF, Froome is facing a drugs positive charge. Etch that somewhere in stone in your, I'm so much cleverer than you, cos I know fancy words (and riddles in my own mind that are really really clever) world. Meanwhile, apart from your love in with the rest of the fanbois on here, you just come across as a grade A ***.

I’m fine with your personal attack. I know firsthand that you don’t do well with spirited sports banter flavored with a bit of dissent and/or humor. Seems like you’re a very angry guy with a short fuse. Good luck with that.

 

[Koronin]

Re:

Despite the best efforts of the mods, doping talk is sneaking into the Pro Road Racing Forum. Maybe this is allowed, as sometimes it's difficult to discuss riders without mentioning doping, or maybe the mods don't always notice. But in any case, I've seen some posts that I feel are mis-characterizing UCI/WADA, and rather than respond in the Froome thread in that forum, and risk the wrath of the mods, I will do it here.

at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek!

UCI made the decision to ban him months ago. It was Froome who rejected the decision and in effect appealed it to the Tribunal, where months can go by just by submitting documents that may have very little bearing on the decision. The delay is on him, because he has nothing to lose by delaying, and a great deal to gain. If Froome had not been allowed to ride until a decision was made, this case probably would have been over a long time ago.

And we just got another case (the Roson case) that proves they can't do anything in a timely manner. That case dates back to Jan 2017 and they just provisionally suspended him. They still haven't even given him a real decision yet.

This is not any evidence at all of not being able to act in a timely manner. Roson has been suspended less than a week, he was just notified of the problem. The fact that it concerns a sample over a year and half old is irrelevant; WADA now tests samples that are years old, when new tests become available that weren't available earlier. There is nothing wrong with declaring an AAF in a very old sample as long as the rider does not have to be suspended until he is actually notified of the AAF.

Maybe there was a slip up, the sample was forgotten and only analyzed much later, or its analysis lost. But it's also possible that the analysis was reinterpreted in light of information that wasn't available before.

Madiot:

Had it concerned a low-key rider, the case would have been resolved a long time ago. It could have been solved by Froome himself, he only had to say: 'listen, I made a mistake in the dosage, I take cognizance of it, I make a public apology and I accept a penalty.' At the limit, the penalty could have been… I won't say negotiated, but adjusted, had Froome and his team been in good faith. On the other hand, they've taken the case purely on legal basis."

In the Roson case it's an adverse analytical finding of his biological passport. So this isn't a sample that wasn't tested, this is the bio passport issue. This isn't a failed or not failed at the time anti-doping test. Rather Roson or Caja Rural knew about it before no idea. However it does appear Movistar did not know about until this past week.

(That's also why I didn't post more than I did with my comment in the other forum. I wanted to try to keep it more to UCI rulings/timings/etc.)

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Despite the best efforts of the mods, doping talk is sneaking into the Pro Road Racing Forum. Maybe this is allowed, as sometimes it's difficult to discuss riders without mentioning doping, or maybe the mods don't always notice. But in any case, I've seen some posts that I feel are mis-characterizing UCI/WADA, and rather than respond in the Froome thread in that forum, and risk the wrath of the mods, I will do it here.

at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek!

UCI made the decision to ban him months ago. It was Froome who rejected the decision and in effect appealed it to the Tribunal, where months can go by just by submitting documents that may have very little bearing on the decision. The delay is on him, because he has nothing to lose by delaying, and a great deal to gain. If Froome had not been allowed to ride until a decision was made, this case probably would have been over a long time ago.

And we just got another case (the Roson case) that proves they can't do anything in a timely manner. That case dates back to Jan 2017 and they just provisionally suspended him. They still haven't even given him a real decision yet.

This is not any evidence at all of not being able to act in a timely manner. Roson has been suspended less than a week, he was just notified of the problem. The fact that it concerns a sample over a year and half old is irrelevant; WADA now tests samples that are years old, when new tests become available that weren't available earlier. There is nothing wrong with declaring an AAF in a very old sample as long as the rider does not have to be suspended until he is actually notified of the AAF.

Maybe there was a slip up, the sample was forgotten and only analyzed much later, or its analysis lost. But it's also possible that the analysis was reinterpreted in light of information that wasn't available before.

Madiot:

Had it concerned a low-key rider, the case would have been resolved a long time ago. It could have been solved by Froome himself, he only had to say: 'listen, I made a mistake in the dosage, I take cognizance of it, I make a public apology and I accept a penalty.' At the limit, the penalty could have been… I won't say negotiated, but adjusted, had Froome and his team been in good faith. On the other hand, they've taken the case purely on legal basis."

You chopped my post, when I posted in the Froome thread I also added: "Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread." That post was about ASO's actions, and the joke system that the UCI/WADA/CAS are. Maybe CF/Sky are the ones responsible for making it take so long, but if they lose, that's just more results that will get tossed so I'm not sure if I buy that one.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Despite the best efforts of the mods, doping talk is sneaking into the Pro Road Racing Forum. Maybe this is allowed, as sometimes it's difficult to discuss riders without mentioning doping, or maybe the mods don't always notice. But in any case, I've seen some posts that I feel are mis-characterizing UCI/WADA, and rather than respond in the Froome thread in that forum, and risk the wrath of the mods, I will do it here.

at this point it isn't about CF, its about how bad the UCI/WADA/CAS/others are because it should not take this long to make a decision. If he broke the rules that decision should have been made already so he must not have, and should be OK to race. If they keep him from racing and the end decision is that he was within the rules...eek!

UCI made the decision to ban him months ago. It was Froome who rejected the decision and in effect appealed it to the Tribunal, where months can go by just by submitting documents that may have very little bearing on the decision. The delay is on him, because he has nothing to lose by delaying, and a great deal to gain. If Froome had not been allowed to ride until a decision was made, this case probably would have been over a long time ago.

And we just got another case (the Roson case) that proves they can't do anything in a timely manner. That case dates back to Jan 2017 and they just provisionally suspended him. They still haven't even given him a real decision yet.

This is not any evidence at all of not being able to act in a timely manner. Roson has been suspended less than a week, he was just notified of the problem. The fact that it concerns a sample over a year and half old is irrelevant; WADA now tests samples that are years old, when new tests become available that weren't available earlier. There is nothing wrong with declaring an AAF in a very old sample as long as the rider does not have to be suspended until he is actually notified of the AAF.

Maybe there was a slip up, the sample was forgotten and only analyzed much later, or its analysis lost. But it's also possible that the analysis was reinterpreted in light of information that wasn't available before.

Madiot:

Had it concerned a low-key rider, the case would have been resolved a long time ago. It could have been solved by Froome himself, he only had to say: 'listen, I made a mistake in the dosage, I take cognizance of it, I make a public apology and I accept a penalty.' At the limit, the penalty could have been… I won't say negotiated, but adjusted, had Froome and his team been in good faith. On the other hand, they've taken the case purely on legal basis."

You chopped my post, when I posted in the Froome thread I also added: "Two disclaimers: I'm not defending CF, nor am I getting into the *CLINIC* discussion in this thread." That post was about ASO's actions, and the joke system that the UCI/WADA/CAS are. Maybe CF/Sky are the ones responsible for making it take so long, but if they lose, that's just more results that will get tossed so I'm not sure if I buy that one.

That was why I added my comment about the Roson situation specifically about how long it's taken for anything and not even an actual decision.

 

[42x16ss]

There’s one solution to this that no one is talking about. Haas could announce that any ban will be proactive, and that the decision will come after the Tour. That would be unprecedented, and would probably break some rule, but it would definitely remove the possibility that Froome’s results would later be negated.

In fact, any ban probably will be proactive, and if Haas hasn’t come to a decision yet, he probably won’t until the Tour is over. As I’ve pointed out before, it generally takes several weeks between coming to a decision and completing the report. If Haas knows the decision now, but hasn’t completed the report, he could advise Froome that the decision would come during the Tour, and assuming it’s a ban, he would have to be removed from the race. In that way, he would effectively dissuade Froome from starting. This could be done in private.

Since Froome has stated he plans to ride the Tour, my guess is that Haas hasn't come to a decision yet. Assuming that's the case, the report would probably not be finished until after the Tour. So Haas could solve this problem by just stating publicly what he privately knows to be the case. Again, that's probably against the rules, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

Though I think Froome should be allowed to ride pending a decision, let’s be very clear why this is taking so long. It’s almost certainly Froome and his team who are dragging out the case. UCI rejected Froome's explanation months ago. Everything since by Froome's team amounts to a Hail Mary operation, with the added benefit that delaying the decision ensures that Froome can keep riding. From that perspective, ASO's move is pushback. If you're going to use the rules to delay the decision to your benefit, we're going to use the rules to ensure that delaying is not to your benefit. If Froome can't ride, it suddenly becomes in his interest for the case to conclude as soon as possible. So who's the one helping resolve this case as quickly as possible, Froome or ASO?

Bingo. If ASO’s ban is upheld and can include the Vuelta, just watch how quickly there will be cooperation. No more 1500 page dossiers of “evidence”, no more conveniently timed University papers....