Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.

I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:

Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:

But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...

"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"

I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?

So DL's winning strategy was to promise voters another Armstrong scandal? "It's exactly what our sport needs."

Lance's conspiracy, revealed in his podcast, that Disney are behind all of this has more credibility.

Fair enough

I was just riffing on Sam's wonderfully desparate "Froome won't get busted because Lappartient leaked the story" theory. With apologies for the mixed metaphor, the tinfoil hat is now on the other foot eh

And Sam would do well to remember that it was a BC insider who leaked the Armitsted story and a Sky insider who leaked the Wiggo's package story. Nest of vipers! And Froome's never been a team player at Sky...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.

Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.

Pretty tame by clinic standards I thought. UCI Voting delegates are those at the top of each NGB who are all trying to beat GB & Sky and failing. I would have thought it was obvious why you might not want Cookson head of UCI while all that is happening. Knowing of a positive by the biggest British rider in cycling with a British Team at the moment, might guarantee you enough votes to sway the difference if you said, I'll make sure this doesn't get brushed under the carpet if you vote for me instead of Cookson who might try and brush it under the carpet. Pretty sure you yourself have claimed Cookson protects Sky & Team GB from testing positive ; )

UCI voting delegates at the top of each NGB are all trying to beat Sky and failing? Now, that is some tin foil conspiracy going on right there. I’m sure you have link or some proof of this?

You really are ever the fantasist. Perhaps they are nearly representing each of their constituents and want to work with a president who actually shows up?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

CyclingTips... multiple sources... Lappartient theory fail...

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/story-behind-story-breaking-froome-positive-news/

CyclingTips: First off, Martha, how did the story come about?

Martha Kelner: The story basically came about – without giving too much away, because I wouldn’t want to compromise any of our sources – but it was a number of sources who came forward…it was a bit of a collaborative effort between the Guardian and Le Monde, with their excellent correspondent Clement Guillou. The story was pretty firm, pretty solid, that Chris had failed a test because of twice the allowed amount of Salbutamol in his urine. Then obviously we, with further investigations, found out what date it was, and when he first became aware of it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

What's the French for mañana?

Lappartient punts tech fraud solution down the road. Mid-March is the new delivery date.

“I hope that hidden motors are not used today in bikes, but I have heard many stories, and some behaviours seem strange. Should there be a case, it would be a disaster for our sport. We will announce in the second half of March what we want to do.”

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.

Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.

Sounds good, I'm blaming him for Froomes shame

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481

If you read WADA's documentation on ADAMS, you'll note the federation sees everyone's test results in the testing pool. The federation is also notified of positives, so the federation knows all.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Chris had failed a test because of twice the allowed amount of Salbutamol in his urine. Then obviously we, with further investigations, found out what date it was, and when he first became aware of it.

But, it's more complicated that just returning a positive score from the lab. There are many opportunities for the federation to decline opening sanctions on a positive.

 

[ooo]

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

 

[CTQ]

Re:

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.

I'm wondering about Lappartient's ability to partition.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.

That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.

That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '

Another proletarian poison dart in the game of politics of envy.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.

That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '

I’m loving the French vs UK showdown with Brailsford. Cycling has got it balls back after a neutered four years with limp Cookson.

 

[rick james]

Drug cheat Impey winning under the French chiefs tenure...changed days indeed

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling

maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.

That's clearly what he's trying to do. But Brailsfraud and Froome are shameless

' "It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened." When a journalist suggested that this would be a 'crazy' situation, Lapartient agreed but added that he would support Giro and Tour organisers if they were to refuse Froome the opportunity to compete in those races while the case was still ongoing. "It's down to RCS and ASO. I know that some organisers, in their rules, in case that there are problems with the image of their race, they can propose to refuse. That could go to CAS. I think so," he said when asked if he would support RCS and ASO. "I think that the best thing for him is not to ride. If RCS go in this direction, I can only agree." '

I’m loving the French vs UK showdown with Brailsford. Cycling has got it balls back after a neutered four years with limp Cookson.

Indeed. Long overdue

And even if the Dawg skates will he go back to smashing GTs? Without Uncle Brian covering his back he's gonna have to scale things back

What odds the Dawg banks £1.5m for starting the 2018 Giro then gets DQ'd for holding on to a moto? Just like the good old days :lol:

And that £1.5m should just about cover his legal bills. Perfect

 

[macbindle]

Farewell gesture: zigzagging down from San Luca into the sunset?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

But in 1930 Alfredo Binda hadn't the PED tech of CF.
He enjoyed the support of the Italian Fascist Party,
and by extension the press ...

Sounds familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Binda

 

[bambino]

Re:

Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.

No. UCI rules allow the race organizer (i.e. ASO for TDF) to reject rider to compete in case they feel it would severely harm the image and reputation of the race. And Sky/Froome needs to adhere to UCI ruling. See the last couple of page of Froome's clinic thread.

I think Lappartient just (wisely) puts pressure on Froome/Sky to speed up the resolution of the case to a direction or another. If the matter is still up in the air coming May, it will be very un-pleasent to everyone, including Froome.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

Lappartient calling on Sky to suspend Froome sounds good. He makes sense when he says that, were Froome to win the Tour and then be stripped of the title, if would be damaging for all.

However. What if Froome is found guilty and is handed a very short suspension (as has happened in other cases like this) and so is free to ride - and win - the Tour? Or - God forbid! - what if Froome is found innocent? What happens then? Sky have benched him from a race he's a favourite to win - would they have to remunerate him as if he had won (call this the Binda Clause, after Alfredo Binda, he was famously paid an amount - equal to what he would have won - not to ride the Giro d'Italia)? Were that to happen, would the UCI compensate Sky for 'doing the right thing'?

Lappartient is not stupid. Lappartient knows that, legally speaking, the only person who can suspend Chris Froome is Chris Froome. So him going after Sky like this when he hasn't got a leg to stand on ... that tells us a lot.

Froome broke the anti-doping law. His B sample confirmed it. He has to support the consequences. It's up to him to demonstrate he is innocent, as it stands right now he's guilty. Every team has an internal conduct and ethics code. The most zero-tolerance ultra-marginal gains team in the world has to have one. Every rider on that team has to sign it. I can't imagine there isn't an article there which specifically requests for suspension of a rider who broke the anti-doping law. It's that simple really.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

But in 1930 Alfredo Binda hadn't the PED tech of CF.
He enjoyed the support of the Italian Fascist Party,
and by extension the press ...

Sounds familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Binda

Well that's one way of saying you haven't got a clue about what I was saying...thank you.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

UCI rules allow the race organizer (i.e. ASO for TDF) to reject rider to compete in case they feel it would severely harm the image and reputation of the race.

As they say in Wikiland, citation needed. Chapter and verse, please.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Froome broke the anti-doping law. His B sample confirmed it.

Again, citation needed. What rule?

(This is what I love about many people round here: they insist riders should follow the rules, but they themselves haven't got a clue about the rules and just make them up as they go along.)

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

UCI rules allow the race organizer (i.e. ASO for TDF) to reject rider to compete in case they feel it would severely harm the image and reputation of the race.

As they say in Wikiland, citation needed. Chapter and verse, please.

UCI regulation 2.2.010bis :
“Special provisions applicable to road events:
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.”

and the TDF rule that refer to 2.2.010 :

"ARTICLE 28
RÉCUSATION - EXCLUSION
28.1 : A.S.O. tient pour essentielle la préservation de son image, de sa réputation et de celles de l’épreuve. Conformément à l’article 2.2.010 bis alinéas 7 et 8 du règlement de l’UCI du sport cycliste, A.S.O. se réserve expressément la faculté de refuser la participation à – ou d’exclure de – l’épreuve, une équipe ou l’un de ses membres, dont la présence serait de nature à porter atteinte à l’image ou à la réputation d’A.S.O. ou de l’épreuve."

Which is roughly:

"A.S.O. holds essential the preservation of its image, its reputation and those of the event. In accordance with article 2.2.010bis paragraphs 7 and 8 of the UCI Cycling Rules, ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse participation in - or to exclude from - the event, a team or the one of its members, whose presence would be likely to harm the image or reputation of ASO or the event."

 

[fmk_RoI]

The whole of 2.2.010 bis needs reading, especially the first dozen words:

Exclusion from races
2.2.010
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence bis holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race. This exclusion can occur before or during the race.

The exclusion shall be imposed by joint decision of the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser.

In case of disagreement between the president of the commissaires panel and the organiser, the decision shall be taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council in the case of a UCI WorldTour event, and by the president of the road commission in other cases, or by the deputies they shall have designated.

The licence holder or the team must be heard.

If the decision is taken by the president of the Professional Cycling Council or by the president of the road commission, he may decide solely on the basis of the report from the president of the commissaires panel.

Unless otherwise provided in this regulation, the results and the bonuses and prizes obtained before the facts on which the exclusion is based shall not be withdrawn.

Special provisions applicable to road events:

The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.

If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period.

However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cedex 13).

(text introduced on 1.01.03; modified on 1.01.05; 25.09.07; 1.01.09).

CAS would take no time at all in deciding this case in Froome's favour.