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

wirral said:
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.

I was much hopeful for Lappy but Sky are in full control here, there is really nothing he can do, nothing. If I were Lappy, I’d take Movistar out of the testing pool and let Landa and co. go the fullest of full ***.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
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.”

"You know, when my mandate as president of the UCI expired, an hour later I was informed Froome's case was still not solved.

It still is an incredibly complex issue more so than any one we’ve ever had in cycling. I leave this office hoping that someday, somebody will get to the bottom of this"
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
wirral said:
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.

I was much hopeful for Lappy but Sky are in full control here, there is really nothing he can do, nothing. If I were Lappy, I’d take Movistar out of the testing pool and let Landa and co. go the fullest of full ***.


Now there is an interesting thought.
 
The UCI must change this dumb{bleep!} system - otherwise the ASO, RCS, MPCC will force it to.

The ASO must be soilng themselves about Froome and his safety at the TdF. If anything happens, Sky's lawyers will drag ASO through the courts tout suite!
 
Re: Re:

thehog 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.

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.

Not sure he would want it to come out accidentally either. Only takes one rider or team grudge to say something or a Labrador to run out in front of Marcus Burghardt folding open his wheel or frame like a taco to spill the motorized beans inside live on TV and it's all over. There's nothing he can do to control that no matter how fake the testing method pretending to not find motors is.
 
Lappy talking tough on TUEs, motors etc. to MPCC :sad:

5uhk6t.jpg


90mxch.jpg




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1qa0qvZAUg
 
Re:

wirral said:
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.

Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
DirtyWorks said:
The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?

No, he is saying that by Froome riding he Giro and Tour and wining is good for cycling PR. Which has been fairly much proven out by Froome’s Giro win, a lot of good and glowing press.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
DirtyWorks said:
The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?

No, he is saying that by Froome riding he Giro and Tour and wining is good for cycling PR. Which has been fairly much proven out by Froome’s Giro win, a lot of good and glowing press.
So much for all those who so noisily claimed he was damaging the sport and should ge banned. Show's you how little they know, I guess.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
DirtyWorks said:
The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.
Are you trying to say that the UCI are delaying the process in order to favour Sky, as Sky are good for cycling's PR?

No, he is saying that by Froome riding he Giro and Tour and wining is good for cycling PR. Which has been fairly much proven out by Froome’s Giro win, a lot of good and glowing press.
So much for all those who so noisily claimed he was damaging the sport and should ge banned. Show's you how little they know, I guess.

No, disagree. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. People are providing opinion, that’s what internet discussion forums are about. In this case discussions of events related Froome, his AAF and to doping in cycling.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
wirral said:
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.

Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.

I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?
 
Re: Re:

wirral said:
DirtyWorks said:
wirral said:
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.

Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.

I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?

Yep agree with all this, Sky are in full control. Regardless of whether Froome is guilty or not, he is likely to get off with the sheer weight of his defence. Dawg just keeps making cycling more and more ridiculous :cool:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
wirral said:
DirtyWorks said:
wirral said:
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.

Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.

I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?

Yep agree with all this, Sky are in full control. Regardless of whether Froome is guilty or not, he is likely to get off with the sheer weight of his defence. Dawg just keeps making cycling more and more ridiculous :cool:

I don't think so. UCI can't ban him from racing before the verdict, although Lappartient tried hard. But after that, no Morgan's or Murdoch's of this world will save him. I'm expecting full year ban at least, backdated of course.
 
Lappartient had Tony Martin slapped into line after his little Froome-related outburst, what can he possibly do about Hinault: "The people from the UCI should have said, 'You were caught so you stay at home.'"

With ASO unable to play the disrepute rule, they and their surrogates are now playing the blame game with the UCI. Makes you think that the stories saying ASO would play the disrepute card came from Aigle...
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
thehog said:
wirral said:
DirtyWorks said:
wirral said:
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.

Disagree. He's replaying the Contador case timing. Contador got his appearance fees, Contador fans watched while the UCI slowed arbitration. Any "ban" was served mostly in the off-season. While other athletes simply vanish from the pro peloton, case swiftly arbitrated.

The UCI as a federation clearly favors riders and teams based on viewership and how much money they bring. Right now, it's Sky.

I take your point. However, I think that Sky (and their or Froome's legal team) are just too powerful and unyielding for Lappartient and the UCI and perhaps their legal expenses budget. He is getting publicly scolded by Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, by far cycling's biggest money spinner, and he is only able articulate his or the UCI's impotence in the matter in reply. I still think Sky is effectively calling the shots on the timeline for the adjudication process and the UCI is going along with them because it is too difficult to fight Sky on this and it is the least worst solution for the UCI in terms of timing.

I believe Sky had a plan to push this to just after the Tour (ban covers Froome's off-season primarily) and they have executed this plan.

If I am wrong and the UCI also wanted the adjudication verdict to come out in August, what would be the precise motivation for that in terms of cash flow or other economic benefits to the UCI?

Yep agree with all this, Sky are in full control. Regardless of whether Froome is guilty or not, he is likely to get off with the sheer weight of his defence. Dawg just keeps making cycling more and more ridiculous :cool:

I don't think so. UCI can't ban him from racing before the verdict, although Lappartient tried hard. But after that, no Morgan's or Murdoch's of this world will save him. I'm expecting full year ban at least, backdated of course.

Possiably but if he can keep it under 9 months from say August, Froomey will be back in 2019 like nothing happened. He can even claim he unfairly he was treated for only trying to keep control of his debilitating asthma.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
42x16ss said:
Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.

It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...
I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
Blanco said:
42x16ss said:
Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.

It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...
I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.

Nah, he'll be Kenyan again. Just like Rusedski went back to being Canadian when he got popped.

It really is amazing how little penetration Froome has made into the general British consciousness given his level of success and the current popularity of cycling. The die hard cycling fans will make excuses everyone else will be meh.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
Blanco said:
42x16ss said:
Sky and Froome have been saying that from the start, and it’s working. At least on those who can’t see past the UK passport.

It's working for their die-hard fans, but the ban will change things. He'll be one more convicted doper, like they gladly claim for Contador, Valverde and others...
I’m not so sure. A Froome ban would likely be seen by the diehards as the French and other nations being vindictive - a fabricated ban to stop UK dominance. Being Australian, we’re very used to their siege mentality when it comes to sport.

Tend to agree. The “I stand with Froomey” hashtag that was trending on Twitter and the “Leave our Lizzy alone” for Amistead, seemingly the British feel that if their athlete is caught it’s some form of injustice. For everyone else it just means that a dirty dopers from x country.
 
Yes, very true. That is why when Contador's positive was disclosed his national federation did all that they could to ensure a ban, and even the Spanish prime minister and the president of the Spanish Olympic Committee openly stated that Contador was guilty and should be banned.

:lol:
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Yes, very true. That is why when Contador's positive was disclosed his national federation did all that they could to ensure a ban, and even the Spanish prime minister and the president of the Spanish Olympic Committee openly stated that Contador was guilty and should be banned.

:lol:
WOT?
It was dirty meat. :p