Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

above_the_cows

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

3/ They've signed up to the World Tour and WADA and are bound by their rules.

Yep. And article 29 is in compliance with UCI rules is it not?

Possibly, but they can't just use it without justification. Article 29 is really for things not covered by other existing rules.

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

Agreed

Perhaps they wanted to force ASO to make an announcement or hoped it would have been sorted by now. (Not an unreasonable hope)


Perhaps theyre genuinely concerned that the value of ASO / the tour is at risk.

It certainley adds a new twist.

Should they also ban ex-cyclists such as Virenque from being on the Tour in media roles then? I would suggest he was part of one of the most damaging events in the Tour's history.

Is he a 5 tour winning current compitor with an unresolved aaf hanging over him ? There must be better comparators like armstrong perhaps who is banned.

No, he was a rider on a team that got kicked out for systematic doping and was allowed to race again as soon as his ban was up. To me a convicted doper is a bigger threat to the sport's reputation than someone who may have used his asthma pump too many times but then only one of them is a major obstacle to a French Tour winner.

The rule talks about reputational damage. Nobody cares about Virenque. People care about Froome.

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

Agreed

Perhaps they wanted to force ASO to make an announcement or hoped it would have been sorted by now. (Not an unreasonable hope)


Perhaps theyre genuinely concerned that the value of ASO / the tour is at risk.

It certainley adds a new twist.

Should they also ban ex-cyclists such as Virenque from being on the Tour in media roles then? I would suggest he was part of one of the most damaging events in the Tour's history.

Funnily enough, none of my Thai, Belgian, Danish, Australian, American, Canadian, Norwegian, Finnish cycling buddies have expressed to me their concerns about Virenque. Froome, on the other hand...

So your friends think a cyclist with no doping conviction to date is a bigger threat to the sport than someone involved in the biggest doping scandal in the sport? I'd suggest getting new friends!

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

Agreed

Perhaps they wanted to force ASO to make an announcement or hoped it would have been sorted by now. (Not an unreasonable hope)


Perhaps theyre genuinely concerned that the value of ASO / the tour is at risk.

It certainley adds a new twist.

Should they also ban ex-cyclists such as Virenque from being on the Tour in media roles then? I would suggest he was part of one of the most damaging events in the Tour's history.

Is he a 5 tour winning current compitor with an unresolved aaf hanging over him ? There must be better comparators like armstrong perhaps who is banned.

No, he was a rider on a team that got kicked out for systematic doping and was allowed to race again as soon as his ban was up. To me a convicted doper is a bigger threat to the sport's reputation than someone who may have used his asthma pump too many times but then only one of them is a major obstacle to a French Tour winner.

The rule talks about reputational damage. Nobody cares about Virenque. People care about Froome.

But they are taking a prejudicial view that anything will eventually come out to potentially cause that damage. If you take this approach to its conclusion they would start banning riders based on innuendo. As people keep pointing out this case shouldn't even be public knowledge so we're talking about penalising a rider because someone leaked confidential information.

Personally I'd love to see G as team leader but I still feel it's an unfair situation.

DeadCalm

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

3/ They've signed up to the World Tour and WADA and are bound by their rules.

Yep. And article 29 is in compliance with UCI rules is it not?

Possibly, but they can't just use it without justification. Article 29 is really for things not covered by other existing rules.

Poll the cycling public at large. From my admittedly limited sample (20ish), most cycling fans (14ish) feel it will be a farce if Froome is allowed to race. The only exceptions are Thai Sky kit wearing fans that got into cycling in the last four years and a couple of Brits. That says to me that reputational damage is a genuine concern for ASO.

tailwindhome

DeadCalm wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

3/ They've signed up to the World Tour and WADA and are bound by their rules.

Yep. And article 29 is in compliance with UCI rules is it not?

Possibly, but they can't just use it without justification. Article 29 is really for things not covered by other existing rules.

Poll the cycling public at large. From my admittedly limited sample (20ish), most cycling fans (14ish) feel it will be a farce if Froome is allowed to race. The only exceptions are Thai Sky kit wearing fans that got into cycling in the last four years and a couple of Brits. That says to me that reputational damage is a genuine concern for ASO.

It would be terrible if Froome were allowed to sully the reputation of the Tour De France.

Vino'sGhost

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

Agreed

Perhaps they wanted to force ASO to make an announcement or hoped it would have been sorted by now. (Not an unreasonable hope)


Perhaps theyre genuinely concerned that the value of ASO / the tour is at risk.

It certainley adds a new twist.

Should they also ban ex-cyclists such as Virenque from being on the Tour in media roles then? I would suggest he was part of one of the most damaging events in the Tour's history.

Is he a 5 tour winning current compitor with an unresolved aaf hanging over him ? There must be better comparators like armstrong perhaps who is banned.

No, he was a rider on a team that got kicked out for systematic doping and was allowed to race again as soon as his ban was up. To me a convicted doper is a bigger threat to the sport's reputation than someone who may have used his asthma pump too many times but then only one of them is a major obstacle to a French Tour winner.

And armstrong is banned from the tour. But in many things its appearamces that matter, amd where reuptational damage is concerned the fact that froome may or may not have cheated whilst devastating to froome it may well be of secondary concern to aso.

Froome must have known he would burn the credit hed built unless of course he was listening to rule spouting muppets like rich.

shipley

DeadCalm wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

3/ They've signed up to the World Tour and WADA and are bound by their rules.

Yep. And article 29 is in compliance with UCI rules is it not?

Possibly, but they can't just use it without justification. Article 29 is really for things not covered by other existing rules.

Poll the cycling public at large. From my admittedly limited sample (20ish), most cycling fans (14ish) feel it will be a farce if Froome is allowed to race. The only exceptions are Thai Sky kit wearing fans that got into cycling in the last four years and a couple of Brits. That says to me that reputational damage is a genuine concern for ASO.

Me too.....and he’s not welcome. Do they need to put up banners ? NOT WELCOME

SKY should unite behind Thomas, even his initials are saying it

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

Poll the cycling public at large. From my admittedly limited sample (20ish), most cycling fans (14ish) feel it will be a farce if Froome is allowed to race. The only exceptions are Thai Sky kit wearing fans that got into cycling in the last four years and a couple of Brits. That says to me that reputational damage is a genuine concern for ASO.

But the law doesn't work on straw polls of your mates.

A question. Was the Giro's reputation harmed by Froome's presence? If so, how?

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Poll the cycling public at large. From my admittedly limited sample (20ish), most cycling fans (14ish) feel it will be a farce if Froome is allowed to race. The only exceptions are Thai Sky kit wearing fans that got into cycling in the last four years and a couple of Brits. That says to me that reputational damage is a genuine concern for ASO.

But the law doesn't work on straw polls of your mates.

A question. Was the Giro's reputation harmed by Froome's presence? If so, how?

And so dear Rumpole, how is that relevant? Are you expecting cas to rule how Aso should manage it’s business?

DeadCalm

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Poll the cycling public at large. From my admittedly limited sample (20ish), most cycling fans (14ish) feel it will be a farce if Froome is allowed to race. The only exceptions are Thai Sky kit wearing fans that got into cycling in the last four years and a couple of Brits. That says to me that reputational damage is a genuine concern for ASO.

But the law doesn't work on straw polls of your mates.

A question. Was the Giro's reputation harmed by Froome's presence? If so, how?

No. But, when it does come down to things that involve public perception, such as, for example, in trademark disputes, as I'm sure you are well aware given your previous employment, polls of the public are taken seriously. Now, I'm not claiming that my sample of 20 fans is definitive but I'd suggest that it probably wouldn't be hugely wide of the mark if a wider cycling fan base was polled.

As for the Giro, I'd suggest that, outside of the UK (and maybe Italy where the fans don't really give a monkeys about doping), its reputation was damaged. Most non-Brit cycling fans that I know (and I know a reasonable number) did not think he should have been there.

Pross

For those talking of reputational damage can you please explain why the possibility that an AAF in another race may result in a future ban is likely to be more damaging to the Tour organisation than all the more or less annual failed tests in the Tour itself and the big scandals of the past? The Tour / ASO don’t seem to had their reputations affected to badly by all that. It just smacks of bandwagon jumping or opportunism to me.

milemuncher1

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

1/ the case should have been ruled on by now... it's absurdly slow.
2/ its their race

3/ They've signed up to the World Tour and WADA and are bound by their rules.

Idiot

Quite.

slim_boy_fat

https://twitter.com/vaughters/status/10 ... 90816?s=21

iainf72

Can I see if I follow the logic of this

Froome shouldn't be at x race

Why?

Because he potentially broke the rules.

But the rules say he is free to race pending a decision on whether he broke the rules or not.

So which one is it, do we care about rules or not?

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

As for the Giro, I'd suggest that, outside of the UK (and maybe Italy where the fans don't really give a monkeys about doping), its reputation was damaged. Most non-Brit cycling fans that I know (and I know a reasonable number) did not think he should have been there.

There's a difference between whether people think he should be there and whether his presence does actual reputation damage.

RichN95.

Here's a simple solution. Let football decide. England wins - Froome leads Sky. Colombia wins - bring in Bernal.

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

For those talking of reputational damage can you please explain why the possibility that an AAF in another race may result in a future ban is likely to be more damaging to the Tour organisation than all the more or less annual failed tests in the Tour itself and the big scandals of the past? The Tour / ASO don’t seem to had their reputations affected to badly by all that. It just smacks of bandwagon jumping or opportunism to me.

Irrelevant.
A poll will be taken asking whether or not the TDF is diminished as a result of Froome's presence. If a significant number of respondents say that it will be diminished then reputational damage will be proven whether or not those respondents are justified in their opinion.
More likely, the clause will be ruled unenforceable for restraint of trade or some other reason.

DeadCalm

iainf72 wrote:

Can I see if I follow the logic of this

Froome shouldn't be at x race

Why?

Because he potentially broke the rules.

But the rules say he is free to race pending a decision on whether he broke the rules or not.

So which one is it, do we care about rules or not?

The rules say ASO can exclude him if they will suffer damage to their reputation. Should we ignore that rule?

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

Irrelevant.
A poll will be taken asking whether or not the TDF is diminished as a result of Froome's presence. If a significant number of respondents say that it will be diminished then reputational damage will be proven whether or not those respondents are justified in their opinion.
More likely, the clause will be ruled unenforceable for restraint of trade or some other reason.

That's not how the law works. Sky could just counter with a poll asking fans if most cyclists are doping. This is a legal tribunal not X-Factor.

davidof

A straw poll of French fans reveals

1 one third over the moon that a convicted doper has been excluded
2 a third who think ASO are not playing by the rules
3 a third who think all cyclists are dopers so why is Froome excluded

RichN95.

davidof wrote:

A straw poll of French fans reveals

1 one third over the moon that a convicted doper has been excluded
2 a third who think ASO are not playing by the rules
3 a third who think all cyclists are dopers so why is Froome excluded

However 50% of the voting forms were spoiled with "Mbeppe!" scrawled over it.

DeadCalm

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Irrelevant.
A poll will be taken asking whether or not the TDF is diminished as a result of Froome's presence. If a significant number of respondents say that it will be diminished then reputational damage will be proven whether or not those respondents are justified in their opinion.
More likely, the clause will be ruled unenforceable for restraint of trade or some other reason.

That's not how the law works. Sky could just counter with a poll asking fans if most cyclists are doping. This is a legal tribunal not X-Factor.

You did use to work at the Patent Office didn't you?

TheBigBean

Reputational damage will likely occur if Froome is given a retrospective ban. A repeat of the Giro 2011 shambles can hardly be appealing to ASO. If someone promises that no such ban is possible then they should soften their stance.

iainf72

DeadCalm wrote:

The rules say ASO can exclude him if they will suffer damage to their reputation. Should we ignore that rule?

No of course not. But in the case of the Giro, no one should have any issues with Froome having won the race, if they're down with the rules.

ASO are entitled to try to enforce this rule, but do we really want rules where people can be excluded for arbitrary reasons set by the organiser? That is more damaging to the sport.

Would be amusing if the rumoured ruling which clears Froome emerges in next couple of days.

topper_harley

Frank Wilson wrote:

Froome should be bummed by a right gaylord.

keep it classy :shock:

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

Reputational damage will likely occur if Froome is given a retrospective ban. A repeat of the Giro 2011 shambles can hardly be appealing to ASO. If someone promises that no such ban is possible then they should soften their stance.

So they're banning him for something that might happen rather than what has happened?

above_the_cows

Well Jean-Xavier de Lestrade's found a new case for his next documentary anyway, so there is that.

Dorset_Boy

So if Froome is excluded, then cleared of the AAf, and sues ASO for loss of earnings etc, where does that leave the reputation of the Tour & ASO? A winner who only won because the best GT rider was excluded, and a messy law suit.

The rules of the sport say he shouldn't be banned, and is free to race until the UCI get their arses in order.

The ASO see this as enhancing the chances of a french winner.