Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[smutchin]

they still managed to manufacture a couple of AAFs in such a small sample

...by administering a huge single dose.

OK, I take your point about the possibility of outliers, but I remain skeptical that this is the explanation in this case. And like @Dogtrousers I'm getting impatient - although I'm mindful of the fact that Ulissi's case took nine months to resolve.

 

[mjr]

What I don't know is who is delaying the process and how. LADS? UCI? Sky?

I suspect it's Sky. I suspect they tried to replicate conditions and reproduce the results during training and failed, so will now try to use the Giro to do it. If he's not anywhere near leading, expect Froome to go missing on the second rest day while he goes to a lab somewhere.

If UCI is delaying it, then some of Lapdog's statements are pretty devious.

 

[Foghat]

I know what Sky's motivation is, or might be.

What I don't know is who is delaying the process and how. LADS? UCI? Sky?

Or maybe I'm just being impatient.

I doubt very much UCI/LADS are delaying the process - it's in their interests for a quick resolution, and they must have good groundwork from earlier cases to use. Given Sky's decision not to take advantage of the off-season as part of a quick ban, the tactic that gives Sky the most exposure and only chance of success is one that prevaricates and delays such that participation at the Giro and Tour are still feasible.

Following due process with limited resources doesn't count as delaying. Taking forever to submit a case does. Do we know if Sky has actually submitted a case yet?

 

[smutchin]

For all we know it may be on hold pending the next scheduled LADS night out.

#classicbantz

 

[Foghat]

For all we know it may be on hold pending the next scheduled LADS night out.

Sure - they could be painting cows' tits red too, but why.....?

Just follow the money.

 

[mjr]

I've had a quick search around. Looks like there is some exceeding slow grinding going on.

This is from yesterday.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lap...-unlikely-to-be-resolved-before-giro-ditalia/

"The procedure is long, questions have to be answered, documents have to be studied. Both sides have powerful lawyers and the case is far more complicated than usual," Lappartient said.

"I'm not authorised to say that much out of respect for the WADA code.

Not authorised to say that much, yet said that much and more?

 

[Foghat]

I admire your trust in the speedy and seamless working of the disciplinary procedures.

Don't be absurd. I've merely pointed out how unlikely it is UCI/LADS will be deliberately delaying the due process.......there's no incentive for them to do so, indeed the contrary applies. Moreover, Sky has every incentive to delay. I haven't commented on the effectiveness of the due process or how expeditious it is. Maybe UCI/LADS need longer to study and respond to what's submitted by Sky, but that's just part of the due process, not 'delaying'.

 

[Foghat]

We have no knowledge that anyone is delaying the process (if you accept the delays of due process). We suspect Sky might have a motive to. That's all.

Quite - but you said you didn't know who is delaying the process and how, and went on to speculate that it could be UCI/LADS or Sky that were delaying the process. The discussion on motives and clarification of what constitutes delay versus due process, which are critical to understanding what's going on and the battle being played out, should assist in that perfectly reasonable speculation.

 

[Siclo]

"Before passing to the next phase, we've got to be sure to have responded to every question. Nobody wants to risk going forward without having closed every detail. For that reason, LADS has asked some questions to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, to be sure to have followed the correct procedure," Lappartient said.

That's an interesting statement, it implies there might be procedural irregularities, that's Froome's lawyer's speciality.

UCI covering bases or responding to a defence?

I get the feeling he'll walk on a technicality. I'm not sure it matters from a credibility perspective. I can't wait for the line 'I've never tested true positive'

 

[al-fresco]

That's Chris Froome's new nickname sorted...

 

[mjr]

Integrity and compliance: the new strong and stable? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...appoint-integrity-officer-jiffy-bag-aftermath

 

[booze and cake]

Ooof it does'nt look good if a company needs to employ an integrity officer. Integrity, something we've been missing since we started.

There were calls for Sky to employ a morality officer, until everyone realised Sky have no morals to officiate. The Disney takeover is being hurried through so we can all return to the land of make believe.

I bet Deliveroo are keen to get involved, imagine if all their riders were on Sky's super inhalers, a massive increase in productivity for the company, and everyone gets their takeaways sooner, while they're hotter, total win. Maybe if they had been involved from the start the questioning would have been a lot simpler:
Q- what's in the jiffy bag?
A- Tandoori chicken masala.

OK, as you were.

 

[Adam4868]

http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/new...uments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685

 

[Viking]

http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/new...uments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685

This is lifted from Bikeradar

They haven't found him guilty. They've just referred it to a full tribunal, which was always going to happen. The LeMonde journalist on twitter says it has gone to the UCI independent tribunal, not CAS. Velonews seem to have made that bit up.

 

[PpPete]

Guardian are saying it could run beyond the TdF and are speculating about what his defence might be.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france
Nothing amazingly new or interesting.

Very true - To get it thrown out by LADS it seems he would have had to have proved a negative.