Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

thegreatdivide

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

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

But he has no 'right' to ride it whatsoever, just as Cav, or Bardet, or any of the other big stars have no 'right' to ride the Tour. It's a multi million Euro arm of a billion Euro business and the business calls the shots (in line with the UCI).

tim000

if ASO ban Froome and then he gets cleared by UCI/WADA . that will make ASO look very foolish and would mean the tour winner won by defaut and would be a devalued win .which is surely damaging the tour . i hope they do ban him now and Thomas goes on to win .

iainf72

We need to remember ASO have attempted to use this rule before.

And it did not work.

The whole thing is so vague it's difficult ground legally.

Vino'sGhost

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"

So summing up your argument is he should win because its not fair?? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAH

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

Both he and I agree that common decency demands you don't put your own beliefs above social norms and try to make others feel comfortable and welcome.

Quite right. And Peterson's real beef was trying mandate made up words are used, like ze or zer. Which seems entirely reasonable to me.

I disagree with JP a fair amount but I think he's right here

What makes people feel much more comfortable is being polite and using the pronouns and names they feel comfortable with.

Eg people here can make the leap between Rick and Richard, and the same at school ( “I prefer Rick to Richard, Miss”) easily enough. Can’t be that hard to move from he to she. People who don’t are just trying to signify their prejudice over the whole issue, and make people who feel different about their gender feel bad.

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

Id like you to call me Sir or at a push King Vino

Vino'sGhost

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

Both he and I agree that common decency demands you don't put your own beliefs above social norms and try to make others feel comfortable and welcome.

Quite right. And Peterson's real beef was trying mandate made up words are used, like ze or zer. Which seems entirely reasonable to me.

I disagree with JP a fair amount but I think he's right here

What makes people feel much more comfortable is being polite and using the pronouns and names they feel comfortable with.

Eg people here can make the leap between Rick and Richard, and the same at school ( “I prefer Rick to Richard, Miss”) easily enough. Can’t be that hard to move from he to she. People who don’t are just trying to signify their prejudice over the whole issue, and make people who feel different about their gender feel bad.

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

Id like you to call me Sir or at a push King Vino

I know thats a title but i havent decided on a pronoun yet, just dont be a dick and do what i want.

rick_chasey

Sorry I didn’t realise you were having identity issues around gender.

Where’s your thinking at, at the moment?

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sorry I didn’t realise you were having identity issues around gender.

Where’s your thinking at, at the moment?

Why? You need only to acknowledge what i want.

rick_chasey

No need to be defensive, I’m only trying to help.

I didn’t realise you felt so strongly about what people call you. It can be tough when you’re unsure of your gender.

It’s why it’s good for others to help.

gsk82

Can we all agree you're a pair of boring dickheads and move on?

Vino'sGhost

Moving on im pleased to see ASO making a stand.

rick_chasey

;-)

Presumably CAS will rule in favour of Froome and so it’ll be EVEN MORE awkward.

Vino'sGhost

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

dolan_driver

I'm no fan of Froome but I hope he gets to race this TdF. ASO didn't seem too bothered about the image of the race when the "fans" were spitting at Sky riders or spraying them with p1ss.

DD.

davidof

Maybe they should introduce the rule
"no rider may equal or surpass the number of wins by Bernard Hinault"

Vino'sGhost

Again i come back to my previous comments that it would have been better for froome to say woops i must have had too many puffs of the inhaler, take a very short ban and then crack on. Not many would have cared then.

inseine

iainf72 wrote:

We need to remember ASO have attempted to use this rule before.

And it did not work.

The whole thing is so vague it's difficult ground legally.

Wasn’t this how they stopped Astana riding? Just on a whim.

mididoctors

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

RichN95.

inseine wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

We need to remember ASO have attempted to use this rule before.

And it did not work.

The whole thing is so vague it's difficult ground legally.

Wasn’t this how they stopped Astana riding? Just on a whim.

That was a year when the Tour wasn't in the World Tour and the teams were invited. They chose not to invite Astana. They also did it several months before the race.

Ultimately by omitting Froome due to the salbutamol issue, they are going against the WADA code, and WADA really don't like that.

Pross

Don't ASO have to allow all WT teams to take part and, if so, surely those teams can select any rider who is not banned? They certainly seem to be on shaky ground especially leaving it so late. The risk of damage by preventing the favourite taking part and then subsequently having the decision ruled unfair is surely greater?

Also, how many riders will be taking part who have actually been convicted of doping? Surely for consistency they should be prevented from taking part too?

A cynic might suggest they are using the situation to try to assist in getting a home winner.

RichN95.

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.

Pross

mididoctors wrote:

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

But in the case of 1) is that Froome's fault? If not should he be penalised that the UCI have a) leaked the case and b) dragged their heels?

Vino'sGhost

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.

Vino'sGhost

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

DeadCalm

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?

Pross

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.

Vino'sGhost

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.

above_the_cows

Well...

DeadCalm

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...

Pross

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.