|
News in January
|
| ziga007 |
Posted on 30-01-2018 11:53
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 388
Joined: 24-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://www.bicikel.com/novice/18088/j...mobil.html
Brajkovic to Adria Mobil
Alberto Contador
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 30-01-2018 12:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
https://www.cyclin...nient-ban/
Apparently Froome is considering to sign a armistice with the UCI, getting a 6-9 months ban and return to the Giro/Tour in time. In process he would lose Vuelta and World Championships medal but effectively he'll hardly miss any races that matter much.
Lol, not sure what to say. Seems like Froome wants the easy way out and sees that he has no chance to win this and prefers that not more dirt gets stirred up in the process.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| AbhishekLFC |
Posted on 30-01-2018 12:22
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11677
Joined: 27-07-2015
PCM$: 1861.50
|
Shonak wrote:
Lol, not sure what to say. Seems like Froome wants the easy way out and sees that he has no chance to win this and prefers that not more dirt gets stirred up in the process.
So he's accepting he cheated/'bent the rules'?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 16:54
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 30-01-2018 12:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I don't get this stance. Because there's no provisional suspension any ban should begin on the date of any hearing and not be back dated to September. If there is no hearing then the ban would start on the date of acceptance, not in September.
Basically if Froome pleads negligence, his Ban would start now and run 6-9months from now and count him out of the Giro and Tour.
The only way to get a back-dated ban is to go through the full process and not to race during that process. But even then he'd look at a 12-month suspension at best which would be September-September writing off this season completely and losing his Veulta win and WC medal.
Or Sky know who to pay to get the rules ignored/changed.... probably that one...
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 30-01-2018 12:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
It's just a report, but yes, that's what Gazzetta dello Sport says.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Atlantius |
Posted on 30-01-2018 12:48
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6795
Joined: 21-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Froome says no
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-01-2018 13:03
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
I don't get this stance. Because there's no provisional suspension any ban should begin on the date of any hearing and not be back dated to September. If there is no hearing then the ban would start on the date of acceptance, not in September.
Basically if Froome pleads negligence, his Ban would start now and run 6-9months from now and count him out of the Giro and Tour.
The only way to get a back-dated ban is to go through the full process and not to race during that process. But even then he'd look at a 12-month suspension at best which would be September-September writing off this season completely and losing his Veulta win and WC medal.
Or Sky know who to pay to get the rules ignored/changed.... probably that one...
I don't get the stance because either they have evidence to ban him or they don't.
Anyway, it all appears to be rubbish according to Froome on Twitter, as Atlantius has pointed out.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 30-01-2018 13:07
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
I don't get the stance because either they have evidence to ban him or they don't.
I've said it before, to you, and i'll say it again.
Froome failed a drugs test, massively. 100%
The reason he is not banned is because the specific substance, Salbutamol, can be excused with a TUE under a certain threashold. A threshold Froome was more than double over! As a result of it's specific classification on the WADA list, a rider who is over the allowed limit of Salbutamol is allowed to present evidence he was not doping and the accumulation was unintended.
Froome failed a drugs test, massively. But he is allowed to provide evidence showing it was an accident.
That is why he is not banned.
The UCI has the evidence, but they have to give Froome a chance to provide evidence of his innocence. Although no-one has ever been able to prove such a high level of Salbutamol was accidental.
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-01-2018 13:15
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
I don't get the stance because either they have evidence to ban him or they don't.
I've said it before, to you, and i'll say it again.
Froome failed a drugs test, massively. 100%
The reason he is not banned is because the specific substance, Salbutamol, can be excused with a TUE under a certain threashold. A threshold Froome was more than double over! As a result of it's specific classification on the WADA list, a rider who is over the allowed limit of Salbutamol is allowed to present evidence he was not doping and the accumulation was unintended.
Froome failed a drugs test, massively. But he is allowed to provide evidence showing it was an accident.
That is why he is not banned.
The UCI has the evidence, but they have to give Froome a chance to provide evidence of his innocence. Although no-one has ever been able to prove such a high level of Salbutamol was accidental.
Yes, i get why he is currently unbanned.
But my hypothetical point is, if the doping agencies are confident that they have enough evidence to ban him then they won't be making deals with him. They would just wait for him to fail to provide evidence and then ban him.
Either way it's a pointless argument as the report appears to be rubbish.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| df_Trek |
Posted on 30-01-2018 13:41
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2324
Joined: 07-07-2016
PCM$: 17374.00
|
I still can't understand why someone can race in a sub-judice condition...
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 30-01-2018 13:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Yes, i get why he is currently unbanned.
But my hypothetical point is, if the doping agencies are confident that they have enough evidence to ban him then they won't be making deals with him. They would just wait for him to fail to provide evidence and then ban him.
Either way it's a pointless argument as the report appears to be rubbish.
That's not how it works. The UCI/WADA don't decide on a plea bargain. The defendent puts it forward, accepting guilt for a reduction in scentence. Just like in normal law, where you can plead guilty for a reduced scentence. The prosecution (UCI/WADA) has to accept your guilty plea and offer you a reduced scentence. They don't get a choice.
Why don't more people do this?
Because most people don't fail by double the allowed limit. Most people also know that by claiming guilt to doping that would end their careers.
Froome and Sky wouldn't actually do it because: A) They'd still miss the Giro and Tour, B) It would kill Froome's career casting doubt on all his previous results, his extra sponsors would end their support of him, and he'd be at risk of being banned from races by organisers, and C) It would end Sky as a team by losing their biggest rider and dragging them further into the doping mud that keeps building up around them, especially at a time when their future support from Sky is in doubt anyway, and they could be banned from races by organisers.
|
| |
|
|
| Kiserlovski01 |
Posted on 31-01-2018 11:34
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4055
Joined: 26-04-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
|
| |
|
|
| Champ_Armstrong |
Posted on 31-01-2018 13:13
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 334
Joined: 02-01-2018
PCM$: 200.00
|
Reminds me of the old Katusha shirts..
Not the biggest fan of this |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 01-02-2018 14:07
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
I don't get this stance. Because there's no provisional suspension any ban should begin on the date of any hearing and not be back dated to September. If there is no hearing then the ban would start on the date of acceptance, not in September.
Basically if Froome pleads negligence, his Ban would start now and run 6-9months from now and count him out of the Giro and Tour.
The only way to get a back-dated ban is to go through the full process and not to race during that process. But even then he'd look at a 12-month suspension at best which would be September-September writing off this season completely and losing his Veulta win and WC medal.
Or Sky know who to pay to get the rules ignored/changed.... probably that one...
Pretty much this...UCI rules clearly state, that back dated ban can only apply if there was provisional suspension, so if the decision should be done in lines suggested by the italian newspapers, the rules would be violated and CAS would eat that decion alive...
Not sure if italian press does not know the rules, or that they think UCI will violate them.
|
| |
|
|
| hillis91 |
Posted on 01-02-2018 14:21
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5897
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 1500.00
|
+1
|
| |
|
|
| hillis91 |
Posted on 01-02-2018 14:21
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5897
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 1500.00
|
Do they even have a positive test on him(Froome)?
From what i can gather, it's not an illegal drug? I mean, every(!) pro-rider is on that.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-02-2018 15:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
hillis91 wrote:
Do they even have a positive test on him(Froome)?
From what i can gather, it's not an illegal drug? I mean, every(!) pro-rider is on that.
For f*cks sake... last time i'm going to say this:
Christopher Clive Froome, FAILED an official drugs test. Not only did he fail, he failed by quite litterally 100%. He was double the allowed limit on Salbutamol. Double.
There is no previously existing evidence that can explain that high a level of Salbutamol to natural or accidental causes. None.
Salbutamol however can be excused to a level with a TUE. A level Chris Froome has doubled. He's exceeded the allowed limit by 100%. But because of Salbutamol's classification under WADA rules it does not give an automatic suspension like EPO would.
Froome is allowed to try and present a case explaining how he was double the allowed limit and prove it was not intentional doping. He can try, but as said there's no existing evidence that can explain being double the allowed limit.
Is that clear enough?
Chris Froome failed a drugs test, massively failed. Completely failed. Not even close to passing.
Just read almost all of my previous posts on the topic, i've explained it multiple times as clearly as possible.
|
| |
|
|
| deek12345 |
Posted on 01-02-2018 15:50
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2761
Joined: 13-06-2009
PCM$: 360.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
hillis91 wrote:
Do they even have a positive test on him(Froome)?
From what i can gather, it's not an illegal drug? I mean, every(!) pro-rider is on that.
For f*cks sake... last time i'm going to say this:
Christopher Clive Froome, FAILED an official drugs test. Not only did he fail, he failed by quite litterally 100%. He was double the allowed limit on Salbutamol. Double.
There is no previously existing evidence that can explain that high a level of Salbutamol to natural or accidental causes. None.
Salbutamol however can be excused to a level with a TUE. A level Chris Froome has doubled. He's exceeded the allowed limit by 100%. But because of Salbutamol's classification under WADA rules it does not give an automatic suspension like EPO would.
Froome is allowed to try and present a case explaining how he was double the allowed limit and prove it was not intentional doping. He can try, but as said there's no existing evidence that can explain being double the allowed limit.
Is that clear enough?
Chris Froome failed a drugs test, massively failed. Completely failed. Not even close to passing.
Just read almost all of my previous posts on the topic, i've explained it multiple times as clearly as possible.
its got to the point now you will have to pin this to the front page  |
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 01-02-2018 16:05
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Can you explain it again please Manx. I still don't get it.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-02-2018 16:06
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Can you explain it again please Manx. I still don't get it.
I can and will ban you for such terrible jokes 
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
