UCI president David Lappartient tells Sir Dave Brailsford to keep his mouth shut after “insult”

iandusud wrote:

Let's remember that the only reason there has ever been any question over whether or not Chris Froome should be riding is because there was a leak at the UCI, for which Lapartient is ultimately responsable. The UCI rules state that a rider with an AAF should be allowed to continue riding until the end of the investigation, so when Lapartient was suggesting that Froome shouldn't ride he was suggesting a course of action contrary to the rules of the UCI, of which he is president, the organisation that caused this whole cock up in the first place by leaking this info. Surely as presidident he should be defending the UCI's rules and processes and not riding rough shod over them. I am certain that he would not have behaved this way if it was a French rider who was concerned. He needs to get his house in order, man up about the leak and find out where it came from.

BTW having lived in France for over 20 years I totally understand Brailsford's comments and think they are probably very accurate, however I don't think they were at all helpful.

This is true and it is right that we are never made aware of how many other AAFs have Froome's name on.

[/quote]

This is true and it is right that we are never made aware of how many other AAFs have Froome's name on.

[/quote]

Or how many AAFs have names of other prominent riders.

iandusud wrote:

This is true and it is right that we are never made aware of how many other AAFs have Froome's name on.

[/quote]

Or how many AAFs have names of other prominent riders.

[/quote]

Exactly, everyone treated equally, I think that if anything comes out of this as a positive, it's that riders can be sure that they won't be judged until they've had a fail trial, even if details are leaked prematurely.

iandusud wrote:

Let's remember that the only reason there has ever been any question over whether or not Chris Froome should be riding is because there was a leak at the UCI, for which Lapartient is ultimately responsable. The UCI rules state that a rider with an AAF should be allowed to continue riding until the end of the investigation, so when Lapartient was suggesting that Froome shouldn't ride he was suggesting a course ok of action contrary to the rules of the UCI, of which he is president, the organisation that caused this whole cock up in the first place by leaking this info. Surely as presidident he should be defending the UCI's rules and processes and not riding rough shod over them. I am certain that he would not have behaved this way if it was a French rider who was concerned. He needs to get his house in order, man up about the leak and find out where it came from.

BTW having lived in France for over 20 years I totally understand Brailsford's comments and think they are probably very accurate, however I don't think they were at all helpful.

Nailed it!

Given the UCI leak and suggestion contrary to UCI rules.( Will leaks like this be heavily fined under GDPR now?) It's definitely for the UCI President to "Fermé la bouche!"

A440 wrote:

Time to get rid of Team Sky and the excesses they represent.

And remember: Anybody but Froome!

I really do my best to keep out of all this, chiefly as I loathe the mudslinging within our ranks: yes, disagree and debate, but keep it civil y’all. However... Anybody but Froome?

Oh fuck off...

And FWIW I would love Tom D to win, or Bardet (though I can’t see that).

A440 wrote:

Time to get rid of Team Sky and the excesses they represent.

And remember: Anybody but Froome!

I really quite like your logic. It sort of reminds me of some of the sillier bits of usenet in the'80s

A440 wrote:

Time to get rid of Team Sky and the excesses they represent.

And remember: Anybody but Froome!

Tour de fixed gear, wine and sandwiches, cotton jerseys and legendary breakaways. Need to get things back to way they used to be like in the Coppi days when you banged down a load of amphetamines and pasta and that was just on a training ride to get a loaf of bread.

Team Sky actually represent what cycling should be but the UCI is unable to foster. Teams with decent sponsorship that can keep riders in a decent fashion. The UCI needs to sell the image of the sport as something to sponsor but because they can't keep their house in order then leaks like the Froome one damage the sport.

A440 wrote:

Time to get rid of Team Sky and the excesses they represent.

And remember: Anybody but Froome!

I'd be more inclined to say anyone but Nibali, somehow he manages to avoid the suspicion his miraculous recoveries and visits by his 'magic accupuncturist' should have attracted.

RobD wrote:

A440 wrote:

Time to get rid of Team Sky and the excesses they represent.

And remember: Anybody but Froome!

I'd be more inclined to say anyone but Nibali, somehow he manages to avoid the suspicion his miraculous recoveries and visits by his 'magic accupuncturist' should have attracted.

You obviously have proof to support your claims, if not you're risking the wrath of  members for unfairly accusing a rider of doing something naughty. They'll be on you like a ton of bricks, I expect, there'll be lots of name calling and abuse as they defend this Nibali chap.

don simon wrote:

RobD wrote:

A440 wrote:

Time to get rid of Team Sky and the excesses they represent.

And remember: Anybody but Froome!

I'd be more inclined to say anyone but Nibali, somehow he manages to avoid the suspicion his miraculous recoveries and visits by his 'magic accupuncturist' should have attracted.

You obviously have proof to support your claims, if not you're risking the wrath of  members for unfairly accusing a rider of doing something naughty. They'll be on you like a ton of bricks, I expect, there'll be lots of name calling and abuse as they defend this Nibali chap.

His transformation was quite remarkable, more so than this recent Giro, but he was tested repeatedly because of that and they came out OK - so any unfounded accusations are just that. Go Nibs. If due process is followed I personally don't give a rats arse who is in the firing line - it didn't with Froome which is why we're having this conversation.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Brailsford isn't wrong though, local mayor's only look within their small area, they fail to look at the bigger picture, basically calling him a narrow minded fuckwit in a role that's basically a title/figurehead role for someone who isn't really capable of doing the job/roles required.

You pretty accurately described Brailsford. A narrow-minded fuckwit who doesn't seem to care how Sky wins.

Burke wrote:

Appears Mr. Brailsford has an "Armstrong" kind of mentality.

That sort of talk will get you into trouble in these parts. It's just a good job that Mr Bailsford and Team SKY have never put a foot wrong, otherwisew it'd be hypocritical.