• 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 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Pres Lappy to the rescue? :cool:

The UCI has turned to the CEA, the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, whose general director Gabriele Fioni will be present at Wednesday’s meeting.

“We will announce on Wednesday an action plan for 2018 of research to develop an infallible and complete detection method for the future, and we will be working together with the CEA to develop this,” the UCI said.


Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/uci-launches-fresh-bid-root-mechanical-dopers_460224#jMgoFZQpcurfCpGB.99
 
Re:

veji11 said:
Exactly. The only thing worse than a rotten system is a presumably serious and clean system so complicated that it allows rotten people with money and lawyers to, you know, breeze through unscathed...

I agree 100%. I get the impression the UCI is a big European bureaucracy - like an extension of the EU government. Complex rules and regulation keeps the bureaucracy busy. As the governing body the UCI should set rules that are beyond challenge in any court.

ASO set an example of the right mindset by threatening to prevent Froome riding the Tour if the case is not resolved. Who is running the sport the UCI or lawyers???

Instead the UCI sits on its hands and lets others decide the fate of the sport's credibility. They allow themselves to be a passive player while the sport bleeds. A complete lack of leadership but I think the UCI presidents are captive to the UCI bureaucracy and toothless tigers. The bureaucracy vote for the president. In effect the presidents become PR agents and little else. Certainly they are not agents for change.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
veji11 said:
Exactly. The only thing worse than a rotten system is a presumably serious and clean system so complicated that it allows rotten people with money and lawyers to, you know, breeze through unscathed...

I agree 100%. I get the impression the UCI is a big European bureaucracy - like an extension of the EU government. Complex rules and regulation keeps the bureaucracy busy. As the governing body the UCI should set rules that are beyond challenge in any court.

ASO set an example of the right mindset by threatening to prevent Froome riding the Tour if the case is not resolved. Who is running the sport the UCI or lawyers???

Instead the UCI sits on its hands and lets others decide the fate of the sport's credibility. They allow themselves to be a passive player while the sport bleeds. A complete lack of leadership but I think the UCI presidents are captive to the UCI bureaucracy and toothless tigers. The bureaucracy vote for the president. In effect the presidents become PR agents and little else. Certainly they are not agents for change.

The UCI is small, tiny in fact. ASO is a reasonably large company actually turns a profit and does more than just the Tour. Cycling and ASO could well exist without the UCI so the UCI has to make a lot rules to keep itself in the frame.
 
Meanwhile on a darkened suburban roadside in Italy... an exchange takes place :p

2wh1rv8.jpg
 
veji11 said:
hfer07 said:
well... So Lappartient just showed his true colours, by playing along with SKY on the "complexity" of Froome's case bvllsh!t :mad:

Same ****, different UCI president

Nah, Lappartien is just f****ng stuck in this case. The rules the UCI itself put in place are a just the worse type of legal pot pourri, they must have been advised by a super expensive law firm at the time that put in place something that allows maximal leeway for super expensive lawyers to trot their stuff, with endless consultations, checks and an overall secrecy.

Sports arbitration is arbitration, not a judicial process and the UCI is the sole authority. There is no independence. There is no check on their power. The lawyers in sports arbitration work for the IOC sports federations when they aren't railroading cases.

You aren't wrong. The role of President is not King. Verbruggen was King. I wonder how many other lifetime appointments are out there.
 
DirtyWorks said:
veji11 said:
hfer07 said:
well... So Lappartient just showed his true colours, by playing along with SKY on the "complexity" of Froome's case bvllsh!t :mad:

Same ****, different UCI president

Nah, Lappartien is just f****ng stuck in this case. The rules the UCI itself put in place are a just the worse type of legal pot pourri, they must have been advised by a super expensive law firm at the time that put in place something that allows maximal leeway for super expensive lawyers to trot their stuff, with endless consultations, checks and an overall secrecy.

Sports arbitration is arbitration, not a judicial process and the UCI is the sole authority. There is no independence. There is no check on their power. The lawyers in sports arbitration work for the IOC sports federations when they aren't railroading cases.

You aren't wrong. The role of President is not King. Verbruggen was King. I wonder how many other lifetime appointments are out there.

I would say Lappartient is stuck by Cookson’s creation of the blackhole in the CADF. Designed for Impey like resolutions to anti-doping cases. Froome will feel confident he might gets a Lizzie or Impey like conclusion to his case even if he goes to WADA. He can drag it out so long we might all forget that he actually did test postive.

Lappartient only hope is to the do what he did with Stade 2 and Cookson’s iPad prior to the election. Leaking Dawgs passport to l’Equipe should do the trick :cool:
 
thehog said:
I would say Lappartient is stuck by Cookson’s creation of the blackhole in the CADF. Designed for Impey like resolutions to anti-doping cases.
It was designed for Bert-like cases. It was designed to take national bias out of the equation. (It was also designed to save national federations the expense of prosecuting doping cases, thus buying their votes, but as with the claims that it would speed up the process and reduce appeals to CAS I don't think this quite worked out as planned).
thehog said:
Froome will feel confident he might gets a Lizzie or Impey like conclusion to his case even if he goes to WADA.
Is there a precedent for going to WADA? Surely they'd just bat it straight back and say CAS is the only appeal route open?
thehog said:
He can drag it out so long we might all forget that he actually did test positive.
With the long memories and short tempers of the Clinic to remind us every few hours that FROOME TESTED POSITIVE!!! - that's quite the fantasy world.
 
I think M. Lappy is not worse for cycling than Cookson based solely on the revelation of Froome's AAF at the Vuelta. If Uncle Brian had been re-elected, I expect no one on the outside would ever have known about Dawg's Sal doping. I don't think the item would have been accessible to the papers that blew the whistle -- too locked down from inside the UCI. No leak would have occurred.
 
JosephK said:
I think M. Lappy is not worse for cycling than Cookson based solely on the revelation of Froome's AAF at the Vuelta. If Uncle Brian had been re-elected, I expect no one on the outside would ever have known about Dawg's Sal doping. I don't think the item would have been accessible to the papers that blew the whistle -- too locked down from inside the UCI. No leak would have occurred.
Just to be clear, you think the leak came from, or was at least authorised by, the President and that is a good thing?
 
King Boonen said:
JosephK said:
I think M. Lappy is not worse for cycling than Cookson based solely on the revelation of Froome's AAF at the Vuelta. If Uncle Brian had been re-elected, I expect no one on the outside would ever have known about Dawg's Sal doping. I don't think the item would have been accessible to the papers that blew the whistle -- too locked down from inside the UCI. No leak would have occurred.
Just to be clear, you think the leak came from, or was at least authorised by, the President and that is a good thing?

I have no idea, of course. This is pure speculation, and not worth much one way or the other. I don't think Lappartient was aware of the AAF when it happened, and I don't think he was the leaker. But if Cookson were in charge, I would not expect the AAF to have gotten out. Not saying the leak was good, just saying that it feels like Froome and Sky are not good for cycling -- just a fan's take -- and if the AAF case can help clean up the sport, just a little, then it's a good thing. And if Lappartient's being there facilitated this, even indirectly, I think it is awesome sauce, with gravy. :lol:
 
JosephK said:
King Boonen said:
JosephK said:
I think M. Lappy is not worse for cycling than Cookson based solely on the revelation of Froome's AAF at the Vuelta. If Uncle Brian had been re-elected, I expect no one on the outside would ever have known about Dawg's Sal doping. I don't think the item would have been accessible to the papers that blew the whistle -- too locked down from inside the UCI. No leak would have occurred.
Just to be clear, you think the leak came from, or was at least authorised by, the President and that is a good thing?

I have no idea, of course. This is pure speculation, and not worth much one way or the other. I don't think Lappartient was aware of the AAF when it happened, and I don't think he was the leaker. But if Cookson were in charge, I would not expect the AAF to have gotten out. Not saying the leak was good, just saying that it feels like Froome and Sky are not good for cycling -- just a fan's take -- and if the AAF case can help clean up the sport, just a little, then it's a good thing. And if Lappartient's being there facilitated this, even indirectly, I think it is awesome sauce, with gravy. :lol:

ahhaha, nice one
did you see Lappartient taking a pic with Vino in Rome?
:p
clean up the sport :D
 
pastronef said:
JosephK said:
King Boonen said:
JosephK said:
I think M. Lappy is not worse for cycling than Cookson based solely on the revelation of Froome's AAF at the Vuelta. If Uncle Brian had been re-elected, I expect no one on the outside would ever have known about Dawg's Sal doping. I don't think the item would have been accessible to the papers that blew the whistle -- too locked down from inside the UCI. No leak would have occurred.
Just to be clear, you think the leak came from, or was at least authorised by, the President and that is a good thing?

I have no idea, of course. This is pure speculation, and not worth much one way or the other. I don't think Lappartient was aware of the AAF when it happened, and I don't think he was the leaker. But if Cookson were in charge, I would not expect the AAF to have gotten out. Not saying the leak was good, just saying that it feels like Froome and Sky are not good for cycling -- just a fan's take -- and if the AAF case can help clean up the sport, just a little, then it's a good thing. And if Lappartient's being there facilitated this, even indirectly, I think it is awesome sauce, with gravy. :lol:

ahhaha, nice one
did you see Lappartient taking a pic with Vino in Rome?
:p
clean up the sport :D

Lappy does appear to be going down the selfie route of Cookson, he needs to leaks Dawgs passport, it’s his only hope :cool:
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...ision-unlikely-to-come-during-tour-de-france/
UCI president David Lappartient has said that should Chris Froome’s salbutamol case extend past the start of the Tour de France next month a decision is unlikely to happen during the race itself. Though Lappartient has no say as to when and how a decision is reached, he says that it could deprive Froome of his rights to defend himself if a hearing was to be held while the race is happening.

So he knows about as much as we do, or he knows that even a decision mid-TdF would result in an appeal by Sky and Froome would carry on riding. Non-news news!
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...ision-unlikely-to-come-during-tour-de-france/
UCI president David Lappartient has said that should Chris Froome’s salbutamol case extend past the start of the Tour de France next month a decision is unlikely to happen during the race itself. Though Lappartient has no say as to when and how a decision is reached, he says that it could deprive Froome of his rights to defend himself if a hearing was to be held while the race is happening.

So he knows about as much as we do, or he knows that even a decision mid-TdF would result in an appeal by Sky and Froome would carry on riding. Non-news news!

Well 1500 pages is a lot to formally respond to and present counter analysis. So, yes it will take a long time which sounds like Sky’s strategy.

Lappy also has to be careful what he says publicly to not prejudice the case. He’s only hope is to amp up the testing on Froome and annouce some form of secret yet to be used motor checking device for the Tour.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...ision-unlikely-to-come-during-tour-de-france/
UCI president David Lappartient has said that should Chris Froome’s salbutamol case extend past the start of the Tour de France next month a decision is unlikely to happen during the race itself. Though Lappartient has no say as to when and how a decision is reached, he says that it could deprive Froome of his rights to defend himself if a hearing was to be held while the race is happening.

So he knows about as much as we do, or he knows that even a decision mid-TdF would result in an appeal by Sky and Froome would carry on riding. Non-news news!

Well 1500 pages is a lot to formally respond to and present counter analysis. So, yes it will take a long time which sounds like Sky’s strategy.

Lappy also has to be careful what he says publicly to not prejudice the case. He’s only hope is to amp up the testing on Froome and announce some form of secret yet to be used motor checking device for the Tour.

Weren't they x-raying bikes at the Giro? I don't see what else he could possibly announce. I picked up there was a general feeling from those who believe motors are being used that the UCI don't want to catch anyone.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
thehog said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...ision-unlikely-to-come-during-tour-de-france/
UCI president David Lappartient has said that should Chris Froome’s salbutamol case extend past the start of the Tour de France next month a decision is unlikely to happen during the race itself. Though Lappartient has no say as to when and how a decision is reached, he says that it could deprive Froome of his rights to defend himself if a hearing was to be held while the race is happening.

So he knows about as much as we do, or he knows that even a decision mid-TdF would result in an appeal by Sky and Froome would carry on riding. Non-news news!

Well 1500 pages is a lot to formally respond to and present counter analysis. So, yes it will take a long time which sounds like Sky’s strategy.

Lappy also has to be careful what he says publicly to not prejudice the case. He’s only hope is to amp up the testing on Froome and announce some form of secret yet to be used motor checking device for the Tour.

Weren't they x-raying bikes at the Giro? I don't see what else he could possibly announce. I picked up there was a general feeling from those who believe motors are being used that the UCI don't want to catch anyone.

Do you think the UCI will try and catch motors and kill the sport?

That is not going to happen. They may make it look like they are looking for motors but they are most definitely not going to tell the public they found motors.

Motors in bikes becoming public will kill the sport forever.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
King Boonen said:
thehog said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...ision-unlikely-to-come-during-tour-de-france/
UCI president David Lappartient has said that should Chris Froome’s salbutamol case extend past the start of the Tour de France next month a decision is unlikely to happen during the race itself. Though Lappartient has no say as to when and how a decision is reached, he says that it could deprive Froome of his rights to defend himself if a hearing was to be held while the race is happening.

So he knows about as much as we do, or he knows that even a decision mid-TdF would result in an appeal by Sky and Froome would carry on riding. Non-news news!

Well 1500 pages is a lot to formally respond to and present counter analysis. So, yes it will take a long time which sounds like Sky’s strategy.

Lappy also has to be careful what he says publicly to not prejudice the case. He’s only hope is to amp up the testing on Froome and announce some form of secret yet to be used motor checking device for the Tour.

Weren't they x-raying bikes at the Giro? I don't see what else he could possibly announce. I picked up there was a general feeling from those who believe motors are being used that the UCI don't want to catch anyone.

Do you think the UCI will try and catch motors and kill the sport?

That is not going to happen. They may make it look like they are looking for motors but they are most definitely not going to tell the public they found motors.

Motors in bikes becoming public will kill the sport forever.

That's pretty much what I was driving at. To think the UCI might bring in new technology/checks is to say you think the current technology and checking system is flawed. I honestly don't see how it could be without the UCI being complicit. If that's the case then Lappartient isn't hoping for anything, he's part of it.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
thehog said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...ision-unlikely-to-come-during-tour-de-france/
UCI president David Lappartient has said that should Chris Froome’s salbutamol case extend past the start of the Tour de France next month a decision is unlikely to happen during the race itself. Though Lappartient has no say as to when and how a decision is reached, he says that it could deprive Froome of his rights to defend himself if a hearing was to be held while the race is happening.

So he knows about as much as we do, or he knows that even a decision mid-TdF would result in an appeal by Sky and Froome would carry on riding. Non-news news!

Well 1500 pages is a lot to formally respond to and present counter analysis. So, yes it will take a long time which sounds like Sky’s strategy.

Lappy also has to be careful what he says publicly to not prejudice the case. He’s only hope is to amp up the testing on Froome and announce some form of secret yet to be used motor checking device for the Tour.

Weren't they x-raying bikes at the Giro? I don't see what else he could possibly announce. I picked up there was a general feeling from those who believe motors are being used that the UCI don't want to catch anyone.

What I meant was, once a team knows the testing method they can build around it. Lappartient has hinted at a new technology which might get used. I believe this is the only way to combat motor fraud.

I would add whereas doping still requires a physical effort, motor doping if detected by a top rider would destroy cycling for years. No UCI president wants that during his reign.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
That's pretty much what I was driving at. To think the UCI might bring in new technology/checks is to say you think the current technology and checking system is flawed. I honestly don't see how it could be without the UCI being complicit. If that's the case then Lappartient isn't hoping for anything, he's part of it.

They are all part of it.

Lappartient is running UCI while trying desperately to get a bigger part in IOC. It is sport politics to these suits. They dont give a fig about morals, integrity, fans, riders, teams, or anyone but themselves and forwarding their own interests.
 
More handwringing from Le Président,
http://www.velonews.com/2018/06/news/uci-wants-froome-sidelined-anti-doping-case-drags_468438
“You know, when I was elected president of the UCI, an hour later I was informed of Froome’s test. Everyone has trouble understanding how after nine months it still has not advanced,” Lappartient told Le Parisien. “But this issue is incredibly complex, more so than any one we’ve ever had in cycling.

“My point of view has always been that the best thing would be if he does not take part in competitions. It would calm things down and he could focus on his defense. He decides to race. We respect his right.”
 
Handwringing - perfect choice of word.

Sky are controlling the process. Sky are dictating when the the process moves along and when it doesn't. Sky are determining outcomes.

It is possible Lappartient is so out of his depth he doesn't even realise this.

Expect more handwringing.