Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Bristolscale7

LOL, no TdF for Froome! I suggest that he spend the time off in a sanitarium in a climate that will be easy on his asthma.

RobFowl

Melodeon wrote: »

I'd say the Giro people will be well pissed off if it's true that they have no discretion on accepting or declining his entry, and the case isn't resolved one way or the other before the race starts.
Especially if he does well/leads/wins with all the attendant press attention during the race and the hullabaloo afterwards, and if the findings eventually go against him.

Actually they do have discretion. They just don't want to use it.
UCI rule
2.2.010 Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race.This exclusion can occur before or during the race

Keeks

RobFowl wrote: »

Actually they do have discretion. They just don't want to use it.
UCI rule
2.2.010 Without prejudice to the disciplinary penalties provided for by the regulation, a licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously blemishes the image of cycling or of the race.This exclusion can occur before or during the race

But there is no precedence for this....If no one has been stopped before for an adverse finding to salbutamol then it will be a trip to court saying why are you picking on my client.....everyone else was allowed to ride....

I suppose neither the UCI or the Giro organizing have got legal advise on this and either don't want the hassle of appearing in courts or don't want to be seen to not be giving Froome a fair deal.

I have a feeling that UCI are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

Borderfox

Well let them be damned for doing something not just sitting on their hands

Leroy42

Keeks wrote: »

But there is no precedence for this....If no one has been stopped before for an adverse finding to salbutamol then it will be a trip to court saying why are you picking on my client.....everyone else was allowed to ride....

I suppose neither the UCI or the Giro organizing have got legal advise on this and either don't want the hassle of appearing in courts or don't want to be seen to not be giving Froome a fair deal.

I have a feeling that UCI are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

Wasn't Ulrich et al stopped back in the day? I didn't think they had actually been found guilty at the time.

The TdF is so big that is can basically invite anyone it wants. The Giro, IIRC, already has an agreement to pay Froome to compete and I wonder if there is no clause in their to exclude him unless he is found guilty. So Giro might be looking at having to pay him anyway. (I have no idea of the contract, just a thought)

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wasn't Ulrich et al stopped back in the day? I didn't think they had actually been found guilty at the time.

The TdF is so big that is can basically invite anyone it wants. The Giro, IIRC, already has an agreement to pay Froome to compete and I wonder if there is no clause in their to exclude him unless he is found guilty. So Giro might be looking at having to pay him anyway. (I have no idea of the contract, just a thought)

They would if that is what the contract stipulated. They would also have been fools not to have a clause in there to exclude him (or withhold money) for a variety of reasons similar to this but that's not to say fools and their money are easily parted.

Macy0161

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wasn't Ulrich et al stopped back in the day? I didn't think they had actually been found guilty at the time.

That was before the ASO/ UCI deal to guarantee World Tour teams spots though?

Giro probably have a bit of a catch 22 as well - it'll definitely be bigger news to the general public if he rides, so depends on whether they consider there is actually nothing worse than no publicity. Look at the increased interest in Ruta del Sol. The Tour is big news anyway.

It's also helping to bury the whole Israel state story....

Bristolscale7

Keeks wrote: »

I have a feeling that UCI are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

If they suspend Froome the only people unhappy are Froome, that tool of a team manager Sky has, and a few koolaid drinking fans. If they let Froome race then they alienate the public, fans, and advertisers.

CantGetNoSleep

Yeah I for one won't watch if Froome races

CramCycle

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

If they suspend Froome the only people unhappy are Froome, that tool of a team manager Sky has, and a few koolaid drinking fans. If they let Froome race then they alienate the public, fans, and advertisers.

You know alot of people will watch regardless, they will annoy the fans (some not all), the public will tune in to see what the hell it is all about, and advertisers give no sh1ts once peopel are watching and there name is nto tied to the person the public despise.

MPFGLB

The Giro will keep Froome as it brings attention to their race ....cycling be damned

But then again they are prepared to race in Israel for the money so letting Froome ride is small fry

Kaisr Sose

MPFGLB wrote: »

The Giro will keep Froome as it brings atention to their race ....cycling be damned

But then again they are prepared to race in Israel for the money so letting Froome ride is small fry

Is it true that there is no such thing as bad publicity? I don’t think so.
Also, the old Ronald Reaganism: If you’re explaining, you’re loosing...
I can’t see the Giro benefiting in any positive way from this.

The UCI should step in here /or WADA (if it’s an adverse finding under WADA) and put an end to all this – it is /its not – an adverse test result.

RobFowl

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Is it true that there is no such thing as bad publicity? I don’t think so.
Also, the old Ronald Reaganism: If you’re explaining, you’re loosing...
I can’t see the Giro benefiting in any positive way from this.

The UCI should step in here /or WADA (if it’s an adverse finding under WADA) and put an end to all this – it is /its not – an adverse test result.

The problem seems to be the rules neglected to put a time limit on how long this process should take. It was envisaged that appeals would be in good faith to prove the levels occurred naturally.
For what ever reason this doesn't seem to be the route Froome is taking and he and his lawyers are dragging it out for all they are worth.
Any UCI race organiser or the UCI itself can exclude him but don't seem to want to risk court...
Any solutions post to DL at Aigle...

pelevin

Froome is such a nice guy who cares so much about the credibility of clean cycling.

1bryan

pelevin wrote: »

Froome is such a nice guy who cares so much about the credibility of clean cycling.

Froome is told by his missus what he's allowed to care about. So if he cares about the credibility of clean cycling, its cos he got her permission.

retalivity

Froome cares about his 6m a year and staying at the top end of the major races so he can continue to earn that. Inhaler-gate and legal wrangling be damned

The Froome case rumbles on and it's looking like as predicted by several sources that the lawyers at Sky are dragging this one out http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-defence-team-may-question-validity-of-salbutamol-test/

Given the race tomorrow in Spain and the man it's named after and similarity to Froome why this is still an issue after 20 odd years in cycling/sport :mad:

SharpshooterTom

TdF are looking to stop Froome participating, its a cert he's going to be in the Giro.

What's the likelihood the TdF are successful in preventing him from taking part in this years race should they choose to go that route? Would it stand up in court?

Lusk_Doyle

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

TdF are looking to stop Froome participating, its a cert he's going to be in the Giro.

What's the likelihood the TdF are successful in preventing him from taking part in this years race should they choose to go that route? Would it stand up in court?

It's their race.

velo.2010

Sky are dragging the UCI into the deep water legally and financially. Sky have deep pockets... do the UCI have unfettered resources to keep this going? I don't know but they (Sky) point blank refuse to back down and accept any wrong doing.

Any sign of conciliation would be a signal of wrong doing when Sky have always wanted to be seen as whiter than white. Its not doing them any favours though.

pelevin

The best it looks that Sky seem to be able to achieve is to drag this out as long as possible. I hope given their very 'unhelpful' attitude as it must surely be perceived by the relevant authorities, that said authorities have the power & guts to really give as severe a punishment as possible. We've had various top riders & the head of the UCI be very public that Froome shouldn't be racing, whilst Sky seem to be trying to use every possible excuse to see if something gets lucky in explaining things away. They've seriously ostracised themselves from any sense of goodwill towards them from surely all but the most nationalistically biased fans. Do they see it as All or Nothing for the future of the team that Froome escapes sanction? It might take time but it doesn't look like they have much hope of winning that battle.

dastardly00

If this isn't resolved by the time of the TdF, and Froome competes, I can see someone on the side of road lynching him

pelevin

dastardly00 wrote: »

If this isn't resolved by the time of the TdF, and Froome competes, I can see someone on the side of road lynching him

I can smell the bags of urine from here already.

RobFowl

He is fighting this all the way so any chance of leniency goes out the window. He's looking at 2 years. My feeling is hearing will just be in time for a ban to start before the TDF, he will appeal it of course but will be persona non grata in the vast majority of races during the appeal.
He will come back after for a different team but be a shadow of the TDF "winner" he was.

Kaisr Sose

velo.2010 wrote: »

I don't know but they (Sky) point blank refuse to back down and accept any wrong doing.

Sky are saying

You know that we know he is gulty but you will have to prove it all the way..

Just because you fight, does not mean you avoid justice/sanction.

Lots of people in jail serving long sentences that fought/denied all the way.

Lots of dopers served bans that fought/denied all the way to CAS.

This is no different. If the evidence shows he is guilty of a doping violation, he will be banned. That will end his career and he probably knows that, hence fighting to prolong his career more than avoid a ban.

jrar

dastardly00 wrote: »

If this isn't resolved by the time of the TdF, and Froome competes, I can see someone on the side of road lynching him

Hasn't Prudhomme / ASO already made noises about excluding him from TdF if the issue has not been resolved by then ? Not sure what Sky reaction would be if that happens.....boycott the race ? I guess it's a question of who needs who more ?

Most local cycling fans (and possibly a lot of others) would be happy to see a race without the Sky train dominating proceedings for large portions of the race, but then again, if it's not them at the front dictating affairs, it'll be one of the other stronger teams i.e. it's not going to turn into a free-for-all just because Sky might boycott the race

Lusk_Doyle

They wouldn't boycott the race. They have two other riders capable of being very close to the business end of things in a protected role aside from Chris(t) Almighty.

velo.2010

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Sky are saying

You know that we know he is gulty but you will have to prove it all the way..

Just because you fight, does not mean you avoid justice/sanction.

Lots of people in jail serving long sentences that fought/denied all the way.

Lots of dopers served bans that fought/denied all the way to CAS.

This is no different. If the evidence shows he is guilty of a doping violation, he will be banned. That will end his career and he probably knows that, hence fighting to prolong his career more than avoid a ban.

I think there was some misunderstanding of my post. 'I don't know' was referring to my previous remark about the UCI's resources. Maybe I could have made that clearer.

I take your points though.

1bryan

RobFowl wrote: »

He is fighting this all the way so any chance of leniency goes out the window. He's looking at 2 years. My feeling is hearing will just be in time for a ban to start before the TDF, he will appeal it of course but will be persona non grata in the vast majority of races during the appeal.
He will come back after for a different team but be a shadow of the TDF "winner" he was.

Rock Racing!

terrydel

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Sky are saying

You know that we know he is gulty but you will have to prove it all the way..

Just because you fight, does not mean you avoid justice/sanction.

Lots of people in jail serving long sentences that fought/denied all the way.

Lots of dopers served bans that fought/denied all the way to CAS.

This is no different. If the evidence shows he is guilty of a doping violation, he will be banned. That will end his career and he probably knows that, hence fighting to prolong his career more than avoid a ban.

Sky's atttitude here would just turn you off modern day sport. Its pure, unadulturated cynicism, all about spin and image and using financial muscle to create an iota of doubt that theyll use to try escape punishment and/or conviction, knowing full well of their own guilt. Its really and truly depressing and one of the many reasons that I cant fecking stand pro cycling, if this is what accounts for the pinnacle of it.