Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

iainf72

Matthewfalle wrote:

Who are they marketing to?

The world at large. They're signalling they care about clean sport and don't want their event tarnished by it anymore. And it works.

Then if it gets overruled it's someone elses fault but they can say they did what they could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

RichN95.

The biggest fallout of this is that I probably won't put the PTP thread up until Wednesday. It will be the best PTP ever.

iainf72

Frank Wilson wrote:

Froome needs a right good bumming by four sturdy Scandinavians wearing wolf skin clothing.

I think your mum is telling you it's bed time. I know it's the last few weeks of year 7 but you still need your sleep

Vino'sGhost

Frank Wilson wrote:

Froome needs a right good bumming by four sturdy Scandinavians wearing wolf skin clothing.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Who are they marketing to?

The world at large. They're signalling they care about clean sport and don't want their event tarnished by it anymore. And it works.

I'd say not so much the world as France. The sport is on the decline in their home territory. I wouldn't be surprised if within twenty years Tour de France becomes a brand name rather than a geographical fact.

bartman100

Frank Wilson wrote:

Froome should be bummed by a right gaylord.

Frank Wilson is soon to be banned also. We'll miss you, said no-one.

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

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.

What a crock.

iainf72

Also, the AAF thing is not a "loophole"

Jesus wept

redvision

iainf72 wrote:

Also, the AAF thing is not a "loophole"

Well whatever it is, it will be changed after this Froome debacle.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Also, the AAF thing is not a "loophole"

Well whatever it is, it will be changed after this Froome debacle.

We shall see. I think there may be considerable fallout after the decision.

gsk82

We all know he'll be cleared to ride and that this is just aso trying to look hard.

Giving someone a time penalty then reversing it when a video emerges of the great French hope doing the same, should be a far bigger scandal and cause more reputational damage than this.

davidof

Not having Froome would also damage the reputation of the 2018 race. Froome probably enhanced the Giro this year, IMHO.

I agree the outstanding AAF is not very satisfactory.

Pross

redvision wrote:

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.

If the abuse he gets is due to 'suspicion of doping' how do you explain the abuse in previous years before his AAF when there was no (legitimate) reason for any suspicion?

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

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.

This has to be a spoof surely? Maybe all the riders should be banned from starting in case they return a failed test during the race. The Tour has survived a 'who's who' of the most prolific dopers taking part / winning, numerous failed tests during the race and the Festina scandal and yet the thing that gets the organisers pandering to the masses is a rider that, at worst, has exceeded the permit dose of a prescribed medicine. You seriously think these things should be determined by the court of public opinion? The only reasonable way I can see ASO could prove reputation all damage would be sponsors walking away which they are highly unlikely to do when the race is getting extra publicity from all this. It's a publicity stunt that ignores the rules of the sport and stirs up an element of supporters.

john1967

ASO you nasty bastrds. Anything to give bardet a better chance.Froome took a facefull of piss for your mighty race.

iainf72

redvision wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Also, the AAF thing is not a "loophole"

Well whatever it is, it will be changed after this Froome debacle.

But probably not in the way people are expecting.

carbonclem

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Well they might, but i still think its good to see ASO grasping the nettle.

Seriously? They have no chance and they are making a token gesture. It’s a gesture that means joe public thinks all cyclists are dopers and undermines everyone despite the eventual outcome. It’s pathetic.

gweeds

Frank Wilson wrote:

Froome needs a jolly good rodgering by six Norwegian lumberjacks.

Is this your way of coming out?

mamil314

redvision wrote:

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.

Where's the head to wall emoticon, this is like talking different languages

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

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.

This has to be a spoof surely? Maybe all the riders should be banned from starting in case they return a failed test during the race. The Tour has survived a 'who's who' of the most prolific dopers taking part / winning, numerous failed tests during the race and the Festina scandal and yet the thing that gets the organisers pandering to the masses is a rider that, at worst, has exceeded the permit dose of a prescribed medicine. You seriously think these things should be determined by the court of public opinion? The only reasonable way I can see ASO could prove reputation all damage would be sponsors walking away which they are highly unlikely to do when the race is getting extra publicity from all this. It's a publicity stunt that ignores the rules of the sport and stirs up an element of supporters.

It's not how it should be, it is how it would be if Sky were to argue (they won't) that ASO won't suffer reputational damage. And yes, as well as surveys of the public there would be letters from tame sponsors threatening to walk away.
Presumably, what Sky will do (and with every chance of success I would imagine) is attack the validity of the rule under EU restraint of trade law.

Vino'sGhost

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

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.

This has to be a spoof surely? Maybe all the riders should be banned from starting in case they return a failed test during the race. The Tour has survived a 'who's who' of the most prolific dopers taking part / winning, numerous failed tests during the race and the Festina scandal and yet the thing that gets the organisers pandering to the masses is a rider that, at worst, has exceeded the permit dose of a prescribed medicine. You seriously think these things should be determined by the court of public opinion? The only reasonable way I can see ASO could prove reputation all damage would be sponsors walking away which they are highly unlikely to do when the race is getting extra publicity from all this. It's a publicity stunt that ignores the rules of the sport and stirs up an element of supporters.

It's not how it should be, it is how it would be if Sky were to argue (they won't) that ASO won't suffer reputational damage. And yes, as well as surveys of the public there would be letters from tame sponsors threatening to walk away.
Presumably, what Sky will do (and with every chance of success I would imagine) is attack the validity of the rule under EU restraint of trade law.

That seems the logical place to look but it depends on the circumstances. There are other races including gt available to him, he was at one recently .

Entry to the tour is not by qualification either it’s by selection from the team and presumably any contract the rider and team have between them.

It’s ridiculous to have taken this down a legal route from the start when looking at the whole he may well have completed any penalty by just putting his hands up early on.

EnacheV

this is a complete farce

what "race integrity and reputation" is to defend when the race is full of dopers and teams run by dopers

Froome should get from ASO some 1-3 years salary as damages in court if he is smart

argyllflyer

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It’s ridiculous to have taken this down a legal route from the start when looking at the whole he may well have completed any penalty by just putting his hands up early on.

Why would he knowingly take an extra few puffs when absolutely certain he was going to be dope tested that day? That's like a tipsy driver doing donuts outside a police station.

thegreatdivide

If he does ride he's going to get a whole heap of abuse from the French fans and that's a certain. More so this time around I would suspect.

I stood right at the finishing line of Sage 7 on the Bettex with a predominantly pure French crowd and the rider arrival went like this:

Yates crosses the line - BIG cheer (they love the Yates boys).
Bardet crosses the line - MASSIVE cheer (the place went nuts every time he appeared on the giant TV throughout the race).
Thomas crosses the line - a HUGE boo erupted across the hilltop and I mean HUGE. I felt really bad for the G.

I also suspect the exodus of fans during the presentation had less to do with the road reopening and more to do with the winning team.

Fun times.

RichN95.

Matt Dickenson at The Times is reporting that there may be a decision on the Froome case (rumoured to clear Froome) this week. Maybe even as early as today.

gweeds

Good to see the UCI is as leaky as ever.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Matt Dickenson at The Times is reporting that there may be a decision on the Froome case (rumoured to clear Froome) this week. Maybe even as early as today.

Hardly news Perry Mason, the UCI said they would make an annoiuncement this week.

Vino'sGhost

CarbonClem wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Well they might, but i still think its good to see ASO grasping the nettle.

Seriously? They have no chance and they are making a token gesture. It’s a gesture that means joe public thinks all cyclists are dopers and undermines everyone despite the eventual outcome. It’s pathetic.

There’s sometimes great value in gestures. The ASO does this sometimes, like banning virenque (overturned by the uci) like chucking Astana off the tour and like binning Sagan.

Sometimes its the right thing to do, not everyone is a simpering wet.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matt Dickenson at The Times is reporting that there may be a decision on the Froome case (rumoured to clear Froome) this week. Maybe even as early as today.

Hardly news Perry Mason, the UCI said they would make an annoiuncement this week.

What's an annoiuncement, Shakespere?

In other words, why not stick to addressing the post, instead of trying to ridicule the poster.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Well they might, but i still think its good to see ASO grasping the nettle.

Seriously? They have no chance and they are making a token gesture. It’s a gesture that means joe public thinks all cyclists are dopers and undermines everyone despite the eventual outcome. It’s pathetic.

There’s sometimes great value in gestures. The ASO does this sometimes, like banning virenque (overturned by the uci) like chucking Astana off the tour and like binning Sagan.

Sometimes its the right thing to do, not everyone is a simpering wet.

They didn't bin Sagan though, that was the race jury.
Otherwise, you could have added removing the time penalty from George Bennett, when they found out that Bardet had been caught, too.