• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
Well, it shouldn't really be that difficult for the first round to be finished before the Giro starts, if that's what all parties want, for a positive like this from September. If Froome had been suspended, do you think the case would have proceeded with the same pace as of now?

BTW, the whole UCI rule, see page 11: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20180101-E_English.PDF

Exclusion from races
2.2.010 bis
Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence 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).
Edit: sorry for being redundant, I only saw the post above after mine...
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.

What exactly in those few dozens of words makes you believe CAS would rule Froome under doping investigation would not be harmful for the image of cycling and the race?

Explanation needed, it is always amusing seeing people throwing their opinions here.
 
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.
@fmk_RoI They didn't have to go through CAS to eject Michael Rasmussen
- how is Froome different?
 
Re:

poupou said:
In June, Froome will have had 9 months to clear his salbutamol level. Who can believe that CAS would rule for him?
I can. I don't think it'd be as cut and dry as FMK does but Sky and Froome are currently playing by the rules that have been set out. They didn't write them.

I would think that the UCI and ASO having a rule that effectively allows them to completely circumvent the processes and rulings of any other body and eject anyone they want on a poorly defined "bringing the race into disrepute" would be pretty easy for decent lawyer to get thrown out.

FYI, it's not CAS for the Tour, it's Chambre Arbitrale du Sport. Useless nugget of information posted upthread by FMK and Netserk :)
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
poupou said:
In June, Froome will have had 9 months to clear his salbutamol level. Who can believe that CAS would rule for him?
I can. I don't think it'd be as cut and dry as FMK does but Sky and Froome are currently playing by the rules that have been set out. They didn't write them.

I would think that the UCI and ASO having a rule that effectively allows them to completely circumvent the processes and rulings of any other body and eject anyone they want on a poorly defined "bringing the race into disrepute" would be pretty easy for decent lawyer to get thrown out.

FYI, it's not CAS for the Tour, it's Chambre Arbitrale du Sport. Useless nugget of information posted upthread by FMK and Netserk :)
It's also worth remembering that this whole process should never have been public, so Froome could point to the leaking of the information (likely from within UCI) causing any reputational damage to races rather than him.
 
When did cycling ever follow the rules? Generally it contorts the broad ruleset to get what it wants along with CAS being lent on.

Although I’m not sure if CAS is still UK Sport friendly or has been infiltrated back by the Europeans. Time will tell.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
I would think that the UCI and ASO having a rule that effectively allows them to completely circumvent the processes and rulings of any other body and eject anyone they want on a poorly defined "bringing the race into disrepute" would be pretty easy for decent lawyer to get thrown out.
Let's look specifically at the disrepute clause. I think we all know it's a catch-all clause, just like WADA's 'against the spirit of sport' nonsense. That of itself doesn't mean it's meaningless - Google "bringing the sport into disrepute" and you'll find plenty about it, in general, across multiple sports - but I think what is clear is that for it to be invoked, the athlete has to have done something. Has Chris Froome done something? According to WADA (and the CADF) no, he has not. He is under suspicion and the facts of the case are to be established. Perversely, in this regard, British Cycling's Julie Harrington has a point (from a purely legal point of view): it is the leaking of the procedure that risks bringing the sport into disrepute, the investigation itself is fully within the rules of the sport.

One of those articles mentioned (chosen randomly - it's late, I'm tired, I'm not reading them all tonight) has this important point to make:
However, both athletes and governing bodies need to be aware that in order to establish a breach of these common provisions, the governing body must establish that public opinion of the sport has been diminished as a result of the conduct in question, and not as a result of some peripheral sideshow (i.e. speculative media articles) which may have since overtaken the conduct in question. Anything less may not suffice and a tribunal may not be prepared to make a finding that the athlete is the cause of bringing themselves or the game into disrepute.
But also I think you have the double punishment problem. Time and again the courts have ruled that you can't be punished twice for the same crime. And the punishment for Froome's crime - if it is found to be a crime, that is - is as set out by WADA. Look at what's happened in cycling: we've been unable to bring in extra punishments without setting very specific rules (eg banning those busted after whatever date it is from ever working in the sport in any capacity that requires the UCI's permission).

So were this to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or the Chambre, I think it's pretty obvious what the decision would be.

One challenge to that you might mention is the Kreuziger passport case and the way the initiation of a case was judged to be the same as a positive. But if we are to follow that analogy, I think then we are at the point in a passport case where it is yet to be decided whether there is a case to answer.

WRT ASO and Astana: different time, different rules, ASO had walked away from the World Tour (Pro Tour) and could invite who it damn well wanted to invite. In the same way that, previously, ASO flexed its muscles by telling Unibet to sod off, they flexed their muscles and told Astana to take a running jump (RCS on the other hand, having said they stood shoulder to shoulder, saw a chance for a quick buck and broke ranks).

WRT ASO and Rasmussen. Actually, probably closer to here than those saying it isn't think. Yes, it was the team that pulled Rasmussen (and the subsequent protracted court cases over that action I think demonstrate the financial danger of Sky benching Froome) but the team acted under considerable pressure. And that's the only tool ASO have: pressure. Which is why (IMO) Lappartient is sounding off on this, in an effort to put pressure on Froome to do the right thing.

(As I've said, it's late, I'm tired, so who can remember who it was McQuaid tried to ban from the Worlds in Germany - Valverde? What was the grounds there, the actual rule invoked?)

It is worth noting though that such pressure is a hit and miss affair. Ancient history, but when Perico did his gout medicine thing in '88, ASO (the Société du Tour de France, as they were then) - through either Xavier Louy or Jacques Goddet, I forget which - tried to put pressure on him and his team (Reynolds - or Movistar as they are today) to do the right thing and pull out of the race but Echavarri told them to take a running jump, commenting afterwards to reporters:
"Pedro didn't do anything wrong. What counts in this race are the rules of the UCI."
And on that, at least, nothing has changed: the rules of the UCI matter here.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
So there's still no deadline for Froome?

In “reasonable time” is the term used, which is oft used in law and nobody is ever able to define what is reasonable in a given context. Renters wait months for their security deposits as the landlord has “reasonable time” to return it. Insurance companies have reasonable time to survey damage and make an assessment.

The term gets used as it’s a period of time that cannot be defined as each case and context is different.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.

Yes and yes.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Rollthedice said:
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.)

A dry, crisp flavor with light body, yet lingering veracity. Bouquet notes of pork pie, foie gras and porchetta. Finish is long lasting, depite mouthful of coffee all over the laptop. Buy and/or drink now.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
King Boonen said:
I would think that the UCI and ASO having a rule that effectively allows them to completely circumvent the processes and rulings of any other body and eject anyone they want on a poorly defined "bringing the race into disrepute" would be pretty easy for decent lawyer to get thrown out.
Let's look specifically at the disrepute clause. I think we all know it's a catch-all clause, just like WADA's 'against the spirit of sport' nonsense. That of itself doesn't mean it's meaningless - Google "bringing the sport into disrepute" and you'll find plenty about it, in general, across multiple sports - but I think what is clear is that for it to be invoked, the athlete has to have done something. Has Chris Froome done something? According to WADA (and the CADF) no, he has not. He is under suspicion and the facts of the case are to be established. Perversely, in this regard, British Cycling's Julie Harrington has a point (from a purely legal point of view): it is the leaking of the procedure that risks bringing the sport into disrepute, the investigation itself is fully within the rules of the sport.

One of those articles mentioned (chosen randomly - it's late, I'm tired, I'm not reading them all tonight) has this important point to make:
However, both athletes and governing bodies need to be aware that in order to establish a breach of these common provisions, the governing body must establish that public opinion of the sport has been diminished as a result of the conduct in question, and not as a result of some peripheral sideshow (i.e. speculative media articles) which may have since overtaken the conduct in question. Anything less may not suffice and a tribunal may not be prepared to make a finding that the athlete is the cause of bringing themselves or the game into disrepute.
But also I think you have the double punishment problem. Time and again the courts have ruled that you can't be punished twice for the same crime. And the punishment for Froome's crime - if it is found to be a crime, that is - is as set out by WADA. Look at what's happened in cycling: we've been unable to bring in extra punishments without setting very specific rules (eg banning those busted after whatever date it is from ever working in the sport in any capacity that requires the UCI's permission).

So were this to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or the Chambre, I think it's pretty obvious what the decision would be.

One challenge to that you might mention is the Kreuziger passport case and the way the initiation of a case was judged to be the same as a positive. But if we are to follow that analogy, I think then we are at the point in a passport case where it is yet to be decided whether there is a case to answer.

WRT ASO and Astana: different time, different rules, ASO had walked away from the World Tour (Pro Tour) and could invite who it damn well wanted to invite. In the same way that, previously, ASO flexed its muscles by telling Unibet to sod off, they flexed their muscles and told Astana to take a running jump (RCS on the other hand, having said they stood shoulder to shoulder, saw a chance for a quick buck and broke ranks).

WRT ASO and Rasmussen. Actually, probably closer to here than those saying it isn't think. Yes, it was the team that pulled Rasmussen (and the subsequent protracted court cases over that action I think demonstrate the financial danger of Sky benching Froome) but the team acted under considerable pressure. And that's the only tool ASO have: pressure. Which is why (IMO) Lappartient is sounding off on this, in an effort to put pressure on Froome to do the right thing.

(As I've said, it's late, I'm tired, so who can remember who it was McQuaid tried to ban from the Worlds in Germany - Valverde? What was the grounds there, the actual rule invoked?)

It is worth noting though that such pressure is a hit and miss affair. Ancient history, but when Perico did his gout medicine thing in '88, ASO (the Société du Tour de France, as they were then) - through either Xavier Louy or Jacques Goddet, I forget which - tried to put pressure on him and his team (Reynolds - or Movistar as they are today) to do the right thing and pull out of the race but Echavarri told them to take a running jump, commenting afterwards to reporters:
"Pedro didn't do anything wrong. What counts in this race are the rules of the UCI."
And on that, at least, nothing has changed: the rules of the UCI matter here.

FMK, KB and Parker ... all good posts. Thanks for the clarifications.
 
Re: Re:

Robert5091 said:
fmk_RoI said:
(As I've said, it's late, I'm tired, so who can remember who it was McQuaid tried to ban from the Worlds in Germany - Valverde? What was the grounds there, the actual rule invoked?)
Paolo Bettini and UCI's anti-doping charter in 2007?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-blasts-world-champion-bettini/
Valverde. But thanks for mentioning Bettini. He too could be used to show how the UCI lacks the ability to do the things the public wants them to do.

With apologies, this document is in French - if anyone can find the English version of it, please link accordingly. Basic upshot of the case was:

- excluding an athlete from a competition in advance because of a suspicion of an anti-doping rule violation constitutes a real disciplinary sanction inflicted on the athlete.

- the exclusion in advance of an athlete from a competition on the basis of mere suspicion, on the sole condition that an investigation has been opened against this athlete and that he has not been heard, violates the principle "nulla poena sine culpa" and the principle of equality of treatment and the right to be heard.

- It also offends the principle of proportionality.

- the UCI tried to block Valverde "pour protéger la sérénité et la réputation des Championnats du Monde" (to protect the serenity and reputation of the World Championships).

- UCI were using Article 9.2.002, which used to read:
9.2.002 A rider against whom an investigation was opened in relation to a fact which may cause a breach of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, will not be eligible for the World Championships or is not authorised to participate to the World Championships until the end of the suspension or until his definitive acquittal. In the event of a positive A Sample, this clause applies starting from the notification of the abnormal analysis result to the rider.

Unless otherwise decided by the anti-doping commission, the above paragraph is also applicable in the event of an investigation or a procedure regarding such a fact, opened in pursuance of a law or other regulation.

Specific cases are examined by the anti-doping commission or its president. Their decision is without appeal.

In addition to the disqualification, the licensee and his national federation will be respectively sanctioned by a fine of CHF 2,000 to CHF 10,000.

The present condition for participation, aims to protect the integrity, serenity and reputation of the World Championships. Its application does not prejudge the decision whether an anti-doping violation has occurred and shall not give rise to any claim in the events of acquittal.
(text introduced on 13.8.04).
I would bet that the LADS are fully aware of the case law on this, as is Lappartient, and again I will say that, IMO, he knows he hasn't a leg to stand on, and that's why he's using the only tool available to him: public pressure.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
- UCI were using Article 9.2.002, which used to read:
9.2.002 A rider against whom an investigation was opened in relation to a fact which may cause a breach of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, will not be eligible for the World Championships or is not authorised to participate to the World Championships until the end of the suspension or until his definitive acquittal. In the event of a positive A Sample, this clause applies starting from the notification of the abnormal analysis result to the rider.

Unless otherwise decided by the anti-doping commission, the above paragraph is also applicable in the event of an investigation or a procedure regarding such a fact, opened in pursuance of a law or other regulation.

Specific cases are examined by the anti-doping commission or its president. Their decision is without appeal.

In addition to the disqualification, the licensee and his national federation will be respectively sanctioned by a fine of CHF 2,000 to CHF 10,000.

The present condition for participation, aims to protect the integrity, serenity and reputation of the World Championships. Its application does not prejudge the decision whether an anti-doping violation has occurred and shall not give rise to any claim in the events of acquittal.
(text introduced on 13.8.04).
Before someone leaps on this and goes "Miss! Miss! Miss! That bad man Mr Cookson let Froome ride the Worlds even though he knew he broke the rules! That bad man Mr Cookson broke the rules! - RTFM.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Robert5091 said:
fmk_RoI said:
(As I've said, it's late, I'm tired, so who can remember who it was McQuaid tried to ban from the Worlds in Germany - Valverde? What was the grounds there, the actual rule invoked?)
Paolo Bettini and UCI's anti-doping charter in 2007?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-blasts-world-champion-bettini/
Valverde. But thanks for mentioning Bettini. He too could be used to show how the UCI lacks the ability to do the things the public wants them to do.

With apologies, this document is in French - if anyone can find the English version of it, please link accordingly. Basic upshot of the case was:

Couldn't find the English version, but that decision seems to have been used in a good few defences if a quick Google search is anything to go by. Would be interesting to know who, what, why, where, when for them (not interesting enough to motivate me to do it though...).
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
fmk_RoI said:
Robert5091 said:
fmk_RoI said:
(As I've said, it's late, I'm tired, so who can remember who it was McQuaid tried to ban from the Worlds in Germany - Valverde? What was the grounds there, the actual rule invoked?)
Paolo Bettini and UCI's anti-doping charter in 2007?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-blasts-world-champion-bettini/
Valverde. But thanks for mentioning Bettini. He too could be used to show how the UCI lacks the ability to do the things the public wants them to do.

With apologies, this document is in French - if anyone can find the English version of it, please link accordingly. Basic upshot of the case was:

Couldn't find the English version, but that decision seems to have been used in a good few defences if a quick Google search is anything to go by. Would be interesting to know who, what, why, where, when for them (not interesting enough to motivate me to do it though...).
One of the main ones seems to have been pulling down the Osaka Rule, the double jeopardy provision that allowed NOCs to ban dopers from the Games. You can't be punished twice for the same crime.