Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

specialgueststar

????

redvision

Already mentioned in the Hinault thread.

More and more reports that it's accurate but sky will very likely win the appeal.

This is why he should have self suspended because this is doing no good whatsoever for the reputation of the sport, or Froome or team sky.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cyc ... 25301.html

gweeds

Seems legit. Everywhere reporting it now.

CAS will hear it Tuesday and announce the decision Weds. whoever loses is likely to appeal but that won’t be heard before the tour starts.

What a fucking shambles.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Now I don't know if Froome is guilty of anything worthy of not being able to compete or not.

But lets get an evening celebrating the history of Tour de France winners, from recent decades, bringing together past riders. For each year, they can call the winner "on the road" to the stage, give them a symbolic trophy; then call up the year's winner after disqualifications post-race to the stage and have the "cheater" pass the trophy to the winner before they both return to their dinner tables of cycling history.

There really wouldn't be that many years where only one rider goes up to collect the trophy!

ademort

Yes it,s all over the websites in Belgium and Holland also. He,s banned and won,t take part unless he wins his appeal.Personally i think it,s terrible of ASO to ban him the weekend before the tour stars, cowards.

sherer

BBC are reporting that he will win his appeal.. Whole thing should have been resolved months ago though, once again cycling looks a laughing stock

cougie

Maybe they wanted a news story to get the tour talked about whilst the WC is hogging the limelight ?

mamil314

Suddenly, Hainault does not look so brave. He simply was the first to talk.

thegreatdivide

sherer wrote:

BBC are reporting that he will win his appeal.. Whole thing should have been resolved months ago though, once again cycling looks a laughing stock

No, the BBC (that bastion of fair and just reporting) stated that 'He expects to win the anti-doping case.'

RichN95.

Reasons why he should win the appeal:

1. He has not been found guilty of anything and is following the WADA procedures that ASO signed up to (via UCI)

2. This should have been confidential. Froome should not be punished for a breech of his own privacy.

3. ASO would have to show evidence that this would damage the image of the race - a race with a poor image anyway. The Giro wasn't damaged.

4. Any arguement about the uncertainty of results would be dismissed as unfounded.

5. Delays in processing the case can be laid at the UCI's door due to other older cases still outstanding

6. Bad faith. ASO have done this at the last minute after months of knowledge of the situation.

If Froome is at the race he could retaliate by refusing to appear at the team presentation and, if the event arises, podium presentations and mandatory media engagements. "You don;t want me here, so I'll keep out of your way and not embarrass you"

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So, don’t be a d!ck and just use the pronoun people want you to use.

Even if it's a made up word for a gender that doesn't exist?

All words are made up, as are genders. There are many non-western cultures that have names for non-binary genders.

lettingthedaysgoby

What a steaming pile of crap. He has every right to ride. This whole thing is a farce.

ademort

Report on SKY sports says Team SKY are confident Chris Froome will start the TDF.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

ASO would have to show evidence that this would damage the image of the race - a race with a poor image anyway. The Giro wasn't damaged.

I tell you what would damage the image of the race: pissed-up fans trying to attack riders after being radicalised by ill-informed comments and inflammatory actions by race organisers. I can see it happening, and quite honestly I fear for Froome's safety.

specialgueststar

RichN95 wrote:

Reasons why he should win the appeal:



3. ASO would have to show evidence that this would damage the image of the race - a race with a poor image anyway. The Giro wasn't damaged.

"

Pinot leaving exhausted. Aru too exhausted to ride the Tour. Yates saying he was riding at the same level but had no chance? Froome riding away to win with large margins of top 10 with a cloud hanging over him with that stupid preying mantis grin ?

Not the Giro I wanted to see...

r0bh

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Pinot leaving exhausted. Aru too exhausted to ride the Tour. Yates saying he was riding at the same level but had no chance? Froome riding away to win with large margins of top 10 with a cloud hanging over him with that stupid preying mantis grin ?

Not the Giro I wanted to see...

Lol Aru was gasping like a fish out of water whilst Froome was still being dropped by Yates et al

RichN95.

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Reasons why he should win the appeal:



3. ASO would have to show evidence that this would damage the image of the race - a race with a poor image anyway. The Giro wasn't damaged.

"

Pinot leaving exhausted. Aru too exhausted to ride the Tour. Yates saying he was riding at the same level but had no chance? Froome riding away to win with large margins of top 10 with a cloud hanging over him with that stupid preying mantis grin ?

Not the Giro I wanted to see...

Most other people liked it. He beat Dumoulin by less than a minute, not a large margin. As for the riders you mentioned, Aru hasn't been good for some time, Yates is a novice as a GT leader and Pinot just isn't that good.

timothyw

Even if you think Froome is dirty (which wouldn't surprise me), this is some bullshit.

Not for ASO to take this action - it isn't their call.

Find the smoking gun, get him banned properly, Lance him and nullify all prior results.

Sky ought tell them to shove it and pull the team if this isn't sorted sharpish.

Does anyone honestly think movistar are cleaner?

RichN95.

I think that ASO are a bit like Boris Johnson on the Brexit referendum. Appealing to a certain audience but expecting to lose.
If they succeed in excluding Froome and then he gets cleared, then at least Prudhomme will lose his job and Froome will sue for millions (particularly with the historic opportunities denied to him)

milemuncher1

Sky could leave him out, but that would play into the hands of the ‘I knew it, I BLODDY KNEW IT’ brigade. They’ll be furiously stroking one out, in a dingey basement somewhere ( probably ) if Sky rise to the ( mass ) debate.

slim_boy_fat

What a mess! UCI squarely to blame for this. Should never have been leaked and we would be none the wiser whilst a fair process could take place. Sky/Froome have every right to ride but I'm not sure they should any more but then pulling him out will be jumped on as an admission of guilt. If he rides some pissed up idiot will interfere with him in some way after the way Lappartient has been and now ASO are stoking the flames.

If he does pull out or is not allowed to ride I hope Thomas smashes the rest of them.

shipley

redvision wrote:

But even if true, I think it's an attempt by ASO to protect themselves. They will, unfortunately imo, lose the appeal but at least they can then turn around to critics and say that they did all they could to prevent Froome riding the tour.

I agree.

It’s going to make for an interesting week, and will do nothing for Froome’s safety in the race if they do win an appeal. It’s getting out of hand now and the way to calm it down is obvious.

If the 1500 pages of flannel and the doggie tests prove his point then he can sue afterwards.

thegreatdivide

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Sky/Froome have every right to ride.

In their opinion.

Article 29 in ASO’s own rules (created in compliance with UCI’s rules):

“The ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in – or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”

So yes, they have every right to say ‘do one’.

As someone pointed out on another forum, think of it as ASO’s birthday party, they can invite who they want.

rick_chasey

mamil314 wrote:

Suddenly, Hainault does not look so brave. He simply was the first to talk.

Brave?

slim_boy_fat

thegreatdivide wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Sky/Froome have every right to ride.

In their opinion.

Article 29 in ASO’s own rules (created in compliance with UCI’s rules):

“The ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in – or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”

So yes, they have every right to say ‘do one’.

As someone pointed out on another forum, think of it as ASO’s birthday party, they can invite who they want.

They could say that to any rider no matter if they had nothing hanging over them. What I meant was, nothing that Froome is currently going through means he is not allowed to ride.

Oh and feel free to comment on the other points I made.

thegreatdivide

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Sky/Froome have every right to ride.

In their opinion.

Article 29 in ASO’s own rules (created in compliance with UCI’s rules):

“The ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in – or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”

So yes, they have every right to say ‘do one’.

As someone pointed out on another forum, think of it as ASO’s birthday party, they can invite who they want.

They could say that to any rider no matter if they had nothing hanging over them. What I meant was, nothing that Froome is currently going through means he is not allowed to ride.

It's clearly written to cover a multitude of potential situations from pending doping allegations to a team who decide to turn up dressed as Hitler. It's their rule, they have it in black and white and they're bringing it into force. Like it or not.

I get it, you love your Froomey.

slim_boy_fat

thegreatdivide wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Sky/Froome have every right to ride.

In their opinion.

Article 29 in ASO’s own rules (created in compliance with UCI’s rules):

“The ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in – or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”

So yes, they have every right to say ‘do one’.

As someone pointed out on another forum, think of it as ASO’s birthday party, they can invite who they want.

They could say that to any rider no matter if they had nothing hanging over them. What I meant was, nothing that Froome is currently going through means he is not allowed to ride.

It's clearly written to cover a multitude of potential situations from pending doping allegations to a team who decide to turn up dressed as Hitler. It's their rule, they have it in black and white and they're bringing it into force. Like it or not.

I get it, you love your Froomey.

Well that's quite the leap and completely wrong.

You still fail to comprehend what I wrote. ASO can choose to let no one ride their race if they want. I haven't denied that. I'll repeat, there is nothing hanging over Froome or Sky that specifically means he is not allowed to ride. Nothing in the process he is going through states hew is not allowed to ride.

So yes, he has every right to ride, it's up to ASO if they want to take that right away.

dolan_driver

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So, don’t be a d!ck and just use the pronoun people want you to use.

Even if it's a made up word for a gender that doesn't exist?

All words are made up, as are genders. There are many non-western cultures that have names for non-binary genders.

Do we really need another seventy though?

DD.

slowmart

Wot the divide dude said.

The whole decision rests with the court of arbitration of the French Olympic Committee applying the rules of the Tour.

Please explain the adverse results to our medical teams satisfaction?

You can't

ongoing debate between lawyers which is the situation we have now.


Whilst Sky will argue it's not fair I can't see how they can successfully argue it won't damage the events reputation or image . I mean for that to happen the lawyers would have to show endemic and sustained drug use in the event itself.

Should be interesting reading the verdict on Wednesday

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

Reasons why he should win the appeal:

1. He has not been found guilty of anything and is following the WADA procedures that ASO signed up to (via UCI)

2. This should have been confidential. Froome should not be punished for a breech of his own privacy.

3. ASO would have to show evidence that this would damage the image of the race - a race with a poor image anyway. The Giro wasn't damaged.

4. Any arguement about the uncertainty of results would be dismissed as unfounded.

5. Delays in processing the case can be laid at the UCI's door due to other older cases still outstanding

6. Bad faith. ASO have done this at the last minute after months of knowledge of the situation.

If Froome is at the race he could retaliate by refusing to appear at the team presentation and, if the event arises, podium presentations and mandatory media engagements. "You don;t want me here, so I'll keep out of your way and not embarrass you"

ASO seem to have taken action based on what might happen rather than what has happened.