Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

above_the_cows

Dorset Boy wrote:

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.

Who knows the whole thing smacks of desperate publicity seeking by ASO if you ask me, because I don't see how they can claim reputational damage on something that is supposed to be private.

DeadCalm

iainf72 wrote:

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.

I wasn't asked if he should have been excluded from the Giro. I was asked if the Giro's reputation had suffered as a result of his presence. I would have preferred that he wasn't there and think that there was reputational damage to the Giro by his presence but accept that he had every right to be there and given that he was, I hope the result stands.

above_the_cows

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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 have no idea how the law works. You’re an idiot.

Well it doesn't work like this anymore...

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

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

I have no idea who that is, but can I nominate Saga Noren to investigate?

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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 have no idea how the law works. You’re an idiot.

Well it doesn't work like this anymore...

Vino clearly doesn't know how blocking works either. I only see his posts if people quote them.

(I won't wave my post grad law diploma at him though)

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

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

I have no idea who that is, but can I nominate Saga Noren to investigate?

The Oscar winning director who made Murder on a Sunday Morning and The Staircase.

redvision

Dorset Boy wrote:

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.

How do you know he will be cleared??

The tour is the centre piece of all ASO events and they want to protect it. They don't want any rider who could face a sanction starting the race.

It could be argued they are taking the action to not only to protect their race but also to protect Froome himself (given the resentment by many towards him).

I imagine they will lose and he will be allowed to start but I think it would be the right thing for sky to pull him out regardless of the appeal outcome. Not that that will happen though.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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 have no idea how the law works. You’re an idiot.

Well it doesn't work like this anymore...

Vino clearly doesn't know how blocking works either. I only see his posts if people quote them.

(I won't wave my post grad law diploma at him though)

Ooooo a post grad law diploma, that must be worth something. Or not

I’ll see your certificate for turning up and raise you an Llm .

RichN95.

Frank Wilson wrote:

Froome should be bummed by a right gaylord.

Do you have a gaylord in mind? According to Wikipedia there are currently 16 gay lords.

You specify a right gay lord. So I would recommend Conservative gay lords Lord Duncan and Lord Barker, who are young enough to get the job done.

iainf72

redvision wrote:

It could be argued they are taking the action to not only to protect their race but also to protect Froome himself (given the resentment by many towards him).

I imagine they will lose and he will be allowed to start but I think it would be the right thing for sky to pull him out.

Froome has been spat on, had piss chucked on him before this because of the environment. There has been resentment for ages.

If Froome was cleared tomorrow with a solid explanation, would that threat be reduced?

mamil314

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.

Check out how bias works in such cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

There are so few people in the world who give a toss about cycling, and a fraction of those allowed themselves to be convinced that Froome is a doper. I can give you a similar sized sample to yours, of people who think that ASO are now damaging the TdF further

redvision

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

It could be argued they are taking the action to not only to protect their race but also to protect Froome himself (given the resentment by many towards him).

I imagine they will lose and he will be allowed to start but I think it would be the right thing for sky to pull him out.

Froome has been spat on, had wee-wee chucked on him before this because of the environment. There has been resentment for ages.

If Froome was cleared tomorrow with a solid explanation, would that threat be reduced?

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

That's victim blaming. Would you have advocated FIFA excluding black footballers from the Russian World Cup to ensure no racist incidents?

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

It could be argued they are taking the action to not only to protect their race but also to protect Froome himself (given the resentment by many towards him).

I imagine they will lose and he will be allowed to start but I think it would be the right thing for sky to pull him out.

Froome has been spat on, had wee-wee chucked on him before this because of the environment. There has been resentment for ages.

If Froome was cleared tomorrow with a solid explanation, would that threat be reduced?

Unlikely, because most of those that think he should swallow the injustice of self-suspension when he thinks hes innocent, for the good of the sport, would immediately tell us the findings were wrong and it's an evil Sky UCI conspiracy.

DeadCalm

mamil314 wrote:

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.

Check out how bias works in such cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

There are so few people in the world who give a toss about cycling, and a fraction of those allowed themselves to be convinced that Froome is a doper. I can give you a similar sized sample to yours, of people who think that ASO are now damaging the TdF further

Where have I claimed that my sample is definitive? It is certainly very small. It does have the advantage though of representing a broader spectrum of nationalities than seem to be represented on this forum.

iainf72

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

None of us know he's not going to be cleared tomorrow. There have been rumours doing the rounds that's what about to happen.

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/1013421271525351425

ASO are doing this for marketing purposes. They can't realistically expect they'll win.

m.r.m.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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 have no idea how the law works. You’re an idiot.

It's perfectly fine to disagree even vehemently with someone. But this type of insulting of other members should really get you at least a temporary ban. Are you really not able to do better?
This is the type of behavior that ruins a forum over time. Are there no moderators? I'd be willing to moderate if help is needed.

above_the_cows

DeadCalm wrote:

It does have the advantage though of representing a broader spectrum of nationalities than seem to be represented on this forum.

Key word being 'seem' here.

Truth is you have no idea.

DeadCalm

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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 have no idea how the law works. You’re an idiot.

Well it doesn't work like this anymore...

Vino clearly doesn't know how blocking works either. I only see his posts if people quote them.

(I won't wave my post grad law diploma at him though)

in fairness to Vino, that response does show a complete misunderstanding of how the law works. Did you ever practise?

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

That's victim blaming. Would you have advocated FIFA excluding black footballers from the Russian World Cup to ensure no racist incidents?

No because that's racism which is not comparable in anyway.

Froome is allowed to race under the aaf rule (loophole). However, ASO have their own rules for their events. One of which reserves the right for them to prevent a rider competing if they believe his participation would damage them or the event.
Froome has an outstanding doping case. Whilst he is within his rights to ride until resolved, ASO are well within their rights to prevent him starting the tour.

above_the_cows

How do you claim reputational damage on something that is a secret?

Matthewfalle

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

None of us know he's not going to be cleared tomorrow. There have been rumours doing the rounds that's what about to happen.

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/1013421271525351425

ASO are doing this for marketing purposes. They can't realistically expect they'll win.

Who are they marketing to?

No_Ta_Doctor

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

That's victim blaming. Would you have advocated FIFA excluding black footballers from the Russian World Cup to ensure no racist incidents?

No because that's racism which is not comparable in anyway.

Froome is allowed to race under the aaf rule (loophole). However, ASO have their own rules for their events. One of which reserves the right for them to prevent a rider competing if they believe his participation would damage them or the event.
Froome has an outstanding doping case. Whilst he is within his rights to ride until resolved, ASO are well within their rights to prevent him starting the tour.

Actually, it's directly comparable. Your argument there was that violence committed by other people in response to Froome's presence would damage the race's reputation. Froome, despite being the victim of the violence, should be prevented from riding due to this.

No_Ta_Doctor

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

None of us know he's not going to be cleared tomorrow. There have been rumours doing the rounds that's what about to happen.

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/1013421271525351425

ASO are doing this for marketing purposes. They can't realistically expect they'll win.

Who are they marketing to?

Everyone that would prefer Froome wasn't at the tour.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

Yes.

Matthewfalle

mamil314 wrote:

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.

Check out how bias works in such cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

There are so few people in the world who give a toss about cycling, and a fraction of those allowed themselves to be convinced that Froome is not a doper. I can give you a similar sized sample to yours, of people who think that ASO are now protecting the image the TdF further as should have been at the Giro

FTFY in the interests of bias.

Matthewfalle

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

None of us know he's not going to be cleared tomorrow. There have been rumours doing the rounds that's what about to happen.

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/1013421271525351425

ASO are doing this for marketing purposes. They can't realistically expect they'll win.

Who are they marketing to?

Everyone that would prefer Froome wasn't at the tour.

But they'll be watching anyway and moaning about it into their beer, so ASO aren't marketing to them.

The question remains.

redvision

No tA Doctor wrote:

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But he's not going to be cleared tomorrow.
So from an ASO perspective the best option is to avoid incidents like that, which tarnish the race, by stopping him from starting.

That's victim blaming. Would you have advocated FIFA excluding black footballers from the Russian World Cup to ensure no racist incidents?

No because that's racism which is not comparable in anyway.

Froome is allowed to race under the aaf rule (loophole). However, ASO have their own rules for their events. One of which reserves the right for them to prevent a rider competing if they believe his participation would damage them or the event.
Froome has an outstanding doping case. Whilst he is within his rights to ride until resolved, ASO are well within their rights to prevent him starting the tour.

Actually, it's directly comparable. Your argument there was that violence committed by other people in response to Froome's presence would damage the race's reputation. Froome, despite being the victim of the violence, should be prevented from riding due to this.

No it's not. He is receiving abuse not because of colour or ethnicity but because he is under suspicion of doping.

One more thing, there seems to also be talk of other riders protesting against his participation. If that happened it would definitely damage the tour, so again ASO actions are reasonable.

DeadCalm

Above The Cows wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

It does have the advantage though of representing a broader spectrum of nationalities than seem to be represented on this forum.

Key word being 'seem' here.

Truth is you have no idea.

Fair point.
The point is, from a legal perspective, reputational damage does not need to be reasonable. It just needs to be shown to have happened or be likely. It doesn't matter whether my mates are reasonable or not, you just need to find enough of them to prove that damage has been suffered. Whether anyone thinks it is reasonable or not, the case is unlikely to be decided on reputational damage but some other point of law, probably related to restraint of trade.

Matthewfalle

M.R.M. wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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 have no idea how the law works. You’re an idiot.

It's perfectly fine to disagree even vehemently with someone. But this type of insulting of other members should really get you at least a temporary ban. Are you really not able to do better?
This is the type of behavior that ruins a forum over time. Are there no moderators? I'd be willing to moderate if help is needed.

Bet you would be willing to help. Vehemently so, some may believe.

Nowt better than a volunteering mod for keeping free speech no discussion going.