# Will Astana be given a slot in le Tour?



## hllclmbr (Jul 30, 2006)

'Cause they're gonna look like even bigger asses than they are if they don't step up and give them an invite, pronto. 

No need to bump an already invited team, they can merely add Astana to the roster.

What say you?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

hllclmbr said:


> 'Cause they're gonna look like even bigger asses than they are if they don't step up and give them an invite, pronto.
> 
> No need to bump an already invited team, they can merely add Astana to the roster.
> 
> What say you?


no way. There's legitimate reasons to doubt them and ASO wants/needs a clean tour. lindsey <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/">suggested</a> in his blog today that if they made their in house testing public it might convince ASO they were clean and deserved a spot. Personally, I'd suggest replacing "the hog" as an overture as well. I don't think any of it's going to get them in though. too much smoke.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

No, ASO will keep up the charade that they were not invited over doping issues rather than they were just the best choice to be excluded in the PT battle with the UCI because of doping issues. The fact that the Giro/Vuelta have let them back in is the bone they've thrown them since the PT has been effectively defeated for all intents and purposes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2008)

We're talking about the French here (ASO) - so no.


----------



## ROGER79 (Dec 29, 2005)

*The answer.....*

NO, just plain NO... next question...... anybody.... is this thing on???


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

So, How bad would the ASO look if Astana wins the Giro (contador) and the Vuelta (Kloden? Levi?) But this team wasn't even allowed to defend it's Tour win...???

Seems like that'd be a big slap in the face if they won the other Grand Tours this year... 
And I'm sure Johan is hoping to do just that.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> So, How bad would the ASO look if Astana wins the Giro (contador) and the Vuelta (Kloden? Levi?) But this team wasn't even allowed to defend it's Tour win...???
> 
> Seems like that'd be a big slap in the face if they won the other Grand Tours this year...
> And I'm sure Johan is hoping to do just that.


Only thing I'd change is the fact that the Vuelta will be dominated by Contador, barring injury. Unfortunately Kloeden and Leipheimer are going to be super domestiques again.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> So, How bad would the ASO look if Astana wins the Giro (contador) and the Vuelta (Kloden? Levi?) But this team wasn't even allowed to defend it's Tour win...???
> 
> Seems like that'd be a big slap in the face if they won the other Grand Tours this year...
> And I'm sure Johan is hoping to do just that.


All that matters is if viewership declines, if it doesn't then ASO looks fine for what matters most to them which is the value of their product. And lets not forget, Astana didn't win the Tour last year, Contador was on Discovery, right? They've said if Contador was on another team he would be welcome.


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

Oops... Sorry, Right, Disco won last year... 
And I just didn't wanna give Contador EVERY grand tour win... 
I was hoping that their team would try to have another Top GC guy, but you're right, Levi has been domestique, and the only reason I mentioned Kloden was cause he dropped out of the Giro, which sometimes indicates "training" level at the Giro, Not yet on top form, right?

Still, I can see your point Dwayne, it's a product, and sponsorship dollars are the only measure by which success is being measured.... Sucks, but that's about the size of it, huh.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

*Prudhomme Reaffirms: No TdF for The Accountant or Astana*

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2008/06/03/ciclismo/1212490428.html


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

blackhat said:


> no way. There's legitimate reasons to doubt them and ASO wants/needs a clean tour. lindsey <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/">suggested</a> in his blog today that if they made their in house testing public it might convince ASO they were clean and deserved a spot. Personally, I'd suggest replacing "the hog" as an overture as well. I don't think any of it's going to get them in though. too much smoke.


There's legitimate reasons to doubt everybody and one thing Bruyneel has always delivered is no failed tests, so if they want/need a clean tour, Astana is perhaps the safest choice. I also don't think ASO will let them in.


----------



## stewartj76 (Jan 2, 2007)

Much like being found "not guilty" is not the same as being innocent, having no failed tests is not the same as being clean.

Note that most athletes will claim to "never failing" which isn't the same as not taking.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

I think Astana might make their testing public to further convince the ASO etc. 

Vuelta? Alberto for sure. Kloden and Levi will go till they get dropped by Contador and then, they'll work for him.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> So, How bad would the ASO look if Astana wins the Giro (contador) and the Vuelta (Kloden? Levi?) But this team wasn't even allowed to defend it's Tour win...???
> 
> Seems like that'd be a big slap in the face if they won the other Grand Tours this year...
> And I'm sure Johan is hoping to do just that.


I still say they won't get an invite.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The only way Astana gets a spot in the Tour is if, by some massive stroke of misfortune, most of the invited teams are forced to withdraw for some reason or another, and there aren't enough second-tier teams to fill the spots. Even then, given a choice between inviting Astana and drafting Bernard Hinault to head an ad hoc team of former French all stars, ASO will lean towards Hinault.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> So, How bad would the ASO look if Astana wins the Giro (contador) and the Vuelta (Kloden? Levi?) But this team wasn't even allowed to defend it's Tour win...???
> 
> Seems like that'd be a big slap in the face if they won the other Grand Tours this year...
> And I'm sure Johan is hoping to do just that.


I don't think they see it quite the same as you. <a href="http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2008/05/justice-aso-style.html">BKW</a> has what's probably the correct take, at least in terms of perception-by winning, festana continues to lose.


----------



## ewarnerusa (Oct 11, 2007)

hllclmbr said:


> 'Cause they're gonna look like even bigger asses than they are if they don't step up and give them an invite, pronto.
> 
> No need to bump an already invited team, they can merely add Astana to the roster.
> 
> What say you?


I say ASO holds their ground and does NOT invite Astana. They've explained why they are excluding the team, they were stung two years in a row by this team. First with Liberty Seguros Wurth (Operacion Puerto 2006) and then the restructured version of the same team renamed Astana (Vino fails a test during the race 2007). I think they've got a legit case of so what if you've restructured, you supposedly did that between Liberty Seguros and Astana. Show us that you can make it a whole season w/o issues and we'll reconsider you. 

I say Contador wins the Vuelta this year and becomes the youngest to win all 3 GT's and the also does it in the shortest time span. He has already said that he is less frustrated about the TdF snub now that he has this opportunity in front of him. 
http://velonews.com/article/77008/contador-eyes-grand-tour-sweep-with-vuelta


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

So why does Rabobank get in? The Chicken should not have been allowed to start (Rabobank violated the rules there), Menchov and other Rabobank riders are implicated in a doping scandal (the Vienna clinic), but still get a pass. Maybe it has something to do with the tour needing Dutch support (although the French apparently hate Dutch tourists since they travel in campers bring their own supplies and don't spend money)....


----------



## ewarnerusa (Oct 11, 2007)

stevesbike said:


> So why does Rabobank get in? The Chicken should not have been allowed to start (Rabobank violated the rules there), Menchov and other Rabobank riders are implicated in a doping scandal (the Vienna clinic), but still get a pass. Maybe it has something to do with the tour needing Dutch support (although the French apparently hate Dutch tourists since they travel in campers bring their own supplies and don't spend money)....


Good point. I'm not familiar with the Vienna clinic incident, the Chicken did somehow start even though the rules says he shouldn't have. I would say the major factor for Rabobank in and Astana out is that Vino failed a test _during _the Tour last year. While any confirmed failed test at any time during a year is taken into account, a failed test during the Tour de France embarrasses Christian more.


----------



## davidwaller (Sep 24, 2004)

hllclmbr said:


> 'Cause they're gonna look like even bigger asses than they are if they don't step up and give them an invite, pronto.
> 
> No need to bump an already invited team, they can merely add Astana to the roster.
> 
> What say you?


Contador has already said he won't ride the Tour, so there's no way Astana's getting an invitation.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

stewartj76 said:


> Much like being found "not guilty" is not the same as being innocent, having no failed tests is not the same as being clean.
> 
> Note that most athletes will claim to "never failing" which isn't the same as not taking.


True, which is why I said nobody was above suspicion. Doesn't change the fact that JB has an unblemished record of having no positive tests. And as I recall, ASO's stated reason for excluding Astana was the positive tests that team had during the 2007 TdF. Didn't keep Cofidis out. My point is not that Astana is clean, but that ASO's stated reasons for excluding them do not withstand scrutiny. I think the same is true of most of the justifications offered by those who are not fans of JB. I would freely agree that the team made a useful pawn in ASO's battle with UCI.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> So why does Rabobank get in?


Because the organizers only needed one team in the fight with the UCI over the PT, so the question is only which ONE do we pick. Astana came up short likely because of the doping issue, likely because is some sense they represent the globilization (UCI) vs. traditionalist (organizers) fight that is also tied in with the PT fight. Rabobank has been a long time big supporter of cycling, you don't punish them when you can pick some Khazaks who **** on your race.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Dwayne, you're right (my original question re Rabobank was semi-rhetorical) that's its another instance of teams/riders being used as the pawns in the ASO - UCI power struggles. I think the bottomline is that the riders need effective representation in this struggle-something like a riders' union. Of course, the UCI says they are that (and will suspend a rider for trying to start a union). That's a joke in itself, since now they are threatening sanctions against riders participating in the tour etc. 

A riders' union would also help with protecting riders against some of the things that happened to riders at the Giro--way too long transfers between stages, crazy stages, etc. That's gotta change too if the sport expects riders to race clean.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Have to set something straight here because I can't stand another Bruyneel rewrite of cycling history.

Both EDDY MERCKX (72-73) AND BERNARD HINAULT (82-83) WON THE GIRO/TOUR/VUELTA IN THE SPACE OF 13 MONTHS (aplogies for the caps but am sick and tired of such sloppiness). In fact, should Contador achieve it, it would have taken him nearly 15 months from the start of the TdF 2007 to the end of the Vuelta 2008. But rather like Ekimov mysteriously becoming the rider to have completed the most Tours (he was 2 short) this will no doubt pass into accepted wisdom.

Velonews should really, really, REALLY fact check and take off the Astana blinkers - their lack of editorial objectivity is embarassing and leads them to make stupid mistakes like this.

As for Astana at the Tour - maybe next year if they stay out of trouble - and since they have the UCI in their pocket that shouldn't be a problem.

Will Astana be missed? What's the betting viewing figures are better than ever - leaving Heiny spitting that he won't be able to rip off the increasingly lucrative rights. Would be interesting to see if the Giro firgures were particularly elevated - would have thought we'd know that by now if they were?


----------



## zphogan (Jan 27, 2007)

Bianchigirl said:


> Have to set something straight here because I can't stand another Bruyneel rewrite of cycling history.
> 
> Both EDDY MERCKX (72-73) AND BERNARD HINAULT (82-83) WON THE GIRO/TOUR/VUELTA IN THE SPACE OF 13 MONTHS (aplogies for the caps but am sick and tired of such sloppiness). In fact, should Contador achieve it, it would have taken him nearly 15 months from the start of the TdF 2007 to the end of the Vuelta 2008. But rather like Ekimov mysteriously becoming the rider to have completed the most Tours (he was 2 short) this will no doubt pass into accepted wisdom.
> 
> ...



Who cares? 13 or 15 months. Its an incredible feat by Contador if he is able to win the Vuelta (which he will barring injury).


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

zphogan said:


> Who cares? 13 or 15 months. Its an incredible feat by Contador if he is able to win the Vuelta (which he will barring injury).


So noone would care if it's claimed Hinault is the person that has won more tour de france than anyone else? It's an incredible feat after all.


----------



## zphogan (Jan 27, 2007)

den bakker said:


> So noone would care if it's claimed Hinault is the person that has won more tour de france than anyone else? It's an incredible feat after all.


Not trying to change history or facts. My point is that you cannot minimize what Contador might be able to achieve with a victory at the Vuelta. Yes, other greats have won the 3 GTs in less time, but Contador is putting himself in select company if he converts at the Vuelta. 

I'll go one step further and say Alberto has shot at Merckx's 11 GTs. Probably a stretch, but I couldn't help myself.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

That's a stetch. He will for sure target the TdF for 2009 and beyond, thus missing the Giro and most likely the Vuelta.

People don't race like Merckx used to, anymore.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> That's a stetch. He will for sure target the TdF for 2009 and beyond, thus missing the Giro and most likely the Vuelta.
> 
> People don't race like Merckx used to, anymore.


Then we sure won't have the defending champion at both the Giro and the Vuelta next year! 

Haha.

Who wears the number one tag then if that's the case anyway?

He MIGHT do the vuelta but I certainly doubt he'd do the Giro next year - why? Giro is typically really hard and all that whereas the Vuelta would not have that many competitors to Contador for him to fend off perhaps. 

Might, like I said. Just might.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

You may not be trying to change facts but velonews - or should that be Astana Cult Times - are either wilfully distorting the facts or simply too lazy to check - either way it denigrates the achievements of the two greatest riders in the sport.

Contador may well win the Vuelta - after that life will be considerably more complicated with the return of Basso. And it's a long time between now and the Vuelta - there's an OP report due just before the Tour which is bound to put the cat among the pigeons for a start.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> You may not be trying to change facts but velonews - or should that be Astana Cult Times - are either wilfully distorting the facts or simply too lazy to check - either way it denigrates the achievements of the two greatest riders in the sport.
> 
> Contador may well win the Vuelta - after that life will be considerably more complicated with the return of Basso. And it's a long time between now and the Vuelta - there's an OP report due just before the Tour which is bound to put the cat among the pigeons for a start.


Yeah well velonews...... Still, if Contador does so, it would be a great feat nonetheless. It's just a few months more and within one season of his previous GT win anyway.

Basso - Let's see how that goes but he'll miss all races this year with his October return right?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> there's an OP report due just before the Tour which is bound to put the cat among the pigeons for a start.


Gee, what timing. I'm sure that wasn't planned....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Gee, what timing. I'm sure that wasn't planned....


You think the Spanish Judiciary is trying to ruin cycling?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> You think the Spanish Judiciary is trying to ruin cycling?


Huh? How do you get that from what I wrote?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Huh? How do you get that from what I wrote?


That's who has the OP information, which is why there has been no movement as no one outside of Spain has been able to get the information. Other than their "summary" report which was sent to the UCI just before the 2006 Tour and Ullrich's case (did anything come out of Spain or did they take Ullrich's DNA to compare, I don't remember?), I don't believe any official documents or physical evidence has seen the light of day.

I suspect what the report is going to be is that no Spanish laws were violated, we're closing the case, so sorry, no one gets a peak.


----------



## Tugboat (Jul 17, 2006)

NO... they stuffed up majorly last year. At first they weren't invited because of the Puerto implications but argued that they were clean and were given a last minute reprieve. Then look what happened with Vinokourov and Kashechkin. Two doped up riders and the ASO left disappointed that the team they had given into after standing firm with their concerns for so long had tarnished the Tour.

If the Tour was my race, there's absolutely no way - results or otherwise, that I would be sending them an invitation. They need to respect the ASO's decision and stay clean for at least the full year, to begin to prove that things are changing, before even thinking about standing a chance to ride next year's Tour.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

Next year, they will get the invite as long as no one gets hit with doping charges.

This year? Heck no. You'd sooner see ASO promote the TdF through the UCI and pull a 180 begging the UCI to tell them how to run their race, who to invite and stand behind the pro tour.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

roadieKill said:


> as we all know the entire makeup of the team including director has changed.


Uh oh. Now you've done it. Expect the standard reply from bigpinkt....


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

roadieKill said:


> somehow seek a french champion again.


And which Frenchman has even a slight possibility of being a GC contender during the Tour this year??? I don't see any candidates for France being in the top 3... Christophe Morrow, Sylvan Chavenel, those are the only Frenchman that I can even name as being lead riders for their respective teams... and that's a top 10 placing maybe....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> And which Frenchman has even a slight possibility of being a GC contender during the Tour this year??? I don't see any candidates for France being in the top 3... Christophe Morrow, Sylvan Chavenel, those are the only Frenchman that I can even name as being lead riders for their respective teams... and that's a top 10 placing maybe....


The claim that Astana were excluded to give a Frenchman the chance of winning seems really silly to me. There are probably about 10 or 15 other teams that need to go too before you'd even reach a decent probability it could happen.

Moreau seems like the only real chance if he could somehow bring his 2007 Dauphine Libere form to the Tour, and not crack one day in the mountians. And that chance is a real long shot.

Even longer shots would be Chavenal, Gadret or Casar. Or a revelation like perhaps Di Gregorio.

It just isn't a real possibility of a French winner unless something totally unexpected happens.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The claim that Astana were excluded to give a Frenchman the chance of winning seems really silly to me.


Its all just speculation on my part reaching at straws as there is no other logical reason for the banning of Astana.
If youve ever lived in France during the race (or even after the race is finished) the french dailies have been bashing the american racers (namely armstrong) and its US team for the past 8 yrs and more.
Thou contador is not american his relation with Bruyneel and Discovery on his tour win pretty well makes him part of the US squad. Thou he wasnt Lance they still will speculate evil doings because its Bruyneel and Discovery ala US team. Thats just the way the french are.
So Prudhomme's banning is probably just seeking a change of face. Maybe not necessarily seeking a french champion but maybe even a french team etc. Either way, its a change of face.


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> Christophe Morrow, Sylvan Chavenel,.


Sorry I can't spell...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

roadieKill said:


> Its all just speculation on my part reaching at straws as there is no other logical reason for the banning of Astana.


There are two perfectly logical explanations and I imagine a combination of the two is the reason Astana was excluded.

#1 They really did **** on the TdF two years in a row, and last year after they were given a reprieve after the previous year and it's cost ASO money. The same guys are still at the top at Astana, what they did was change management and many riders.

#2 To demonstrate to the UCI who really holds the power, the organizers needed to exclude some team, it was Unibet in 2007, they needed to pick one for 2008. Astana drew the short straw because of #1 and perhaps because they are not one of the traditional European teams, and maybe because ASO is not a big fan of Bruyneel.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Id feel bad for Contador and Levi if it werent for the fact that they totally knew this. I mean come on, who wouldnt want to sign those guys? They chose a team that they knew for a fact was excluded from the Tdf, now they'll have to live with that choice.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

B15serv said:


> IThey chose a team that they knew for a fact was excluded from the Tdf,


Not true at all.

They had signed long before Astana's exclusion was announced. There was no clue that Astana would be excluded. Astana's internal anti-doping campaign is on par with other leading efforts, the obvious inference being that they would have expected full participation in all major races, TdF included.

A wary rider might have shied away from signing with Astana in fear of some repurcussions, but there were no "facts" thto support that choice. 

JR


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

JSR said:


> . Astana's internal anti-doping campaign is on par with other leading efforts, the obvious inference being that they would have expected full participation in all major races, TdF included.


does anyone really know what their internal doping controls are? they're using Damsgaard's services but afaik, they've not made public what that actually entails or any of the results and the doctors not talking. johan had the following to say to VN, but it's typically vague while still giving true believers fodder for their delusions.
<i>
Question: Can you talk about the team’s work with Damsgaard?

Johan Bruyneel: From the beginning, we decided we would work with (Dr. Rasmus) Damsgaard for the internal anti-doping tests. I looked at all the different programs and that was the best one. I’m even more impressed now that we’ve used it. There are a lot of tests. It’s a lot more extended than the biological passport. I think with what we have, with the anti-doping program and with the performances we’re having at the same time, it says a lot about this team.

We are proving that we are one of the best teams in the world, with great riders and great performances. We brought the knowledge and training systems from Postal Service and Discovery to Astana. The fact that we can be successful with other riders, young riders, that’s one of the biggest satisfactions. Even with one of the strictest internal anti-doping programs says even more. When we were at Postal Service, Discovery, there were a lot of rumors and stories, but there are no secrets. It takes hard work, planning, being serious and working with professionals. </i>

thanks for clearing that up, Hog.


----------



## ROGER79 (Dec 29, 2005)

*... again*

Like I said before "No", just plain "No"... next question... move on, there's nothing to see here, these are not the droids you're looking for...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Uh oh. Now you've done it. Expect the standard reply from bigpinkt....


Since you are now up to speed on the truth could you do it for me? :idea:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

JSR said:


> Not true at all.
> 
> They had signed long before Astana's exclusion was announced. There was no clue that Astana would be excluded. Astana's internal anti-doping campaign is on par with other leading efforts, the obvious inference being that they would have expected full participation in all major races, TdF included.
> 
> ...


That is not correct. After Vino and Kash tested postive, along with 3 other Astana riders last year, The ASO made it pretty clear that the likelihood of Astana getting allowed into 08 tour was low. While they did not give the decision when ever the were asked however the response was always something along the line of "We have been embarrassed many times by Astana. We will reserve the right to invite who we want and may change the structure of the teams who get in all together" Some people saw this as possible return to national teams, but that would never happen. The hiring of Johann made it certain they would not be going.

We have no idea what Astana's internal anti doping program is or how successful it is because no information has been released to the public, it still "Trust us"


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> and maybe because ASO is not a big fan of Bruyneel.



If its anything that would most likely be it. Unfortuanely Bruyneel and company is guilty by association rather than guilty by past wrong doings.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

JSR said:


> Not true at all.
> 
> They had signed long before Astana's exclusion was announced. There was no clue that Astana would be excluded. Astana's internal anti-doping campaign is on par with other leading efforts, the obvious inference being that they would have expected full participation in all major races, TdF included.
> 
> ...


i agree... hindsight being 20/20 im sure that if Bruyneel knew that Astana was not to be invited to the tour he wouldnt have signed with Astana. The guys passion has been the tour since 1999 so how do you expect him to just roll over and say ok.. were not going to the big party this year and accept it. notta!

Also to be technical it was only last yr that Vino and others disgraced the Astana team name. Prior to that it was Liberty Siguros.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

roadieKill said:


> If its anything that would most likely be it. Unfortuanely Bruyneel and company is guilty by association rather than guilty by past wrong doings.



You are kidding right? The 99 cortisone positive, The dumping of PED in the 2000 tour, and finally the 6 EPO positives from the 99 tour. While the Lance fans did their best to ignore these issues and pretend hey did not happen the ASO and most fans of procycling did not like it. When the EPO postives came out the ASO was very clear that they felt betrayed.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

roadieKill said:


> i
> 
> Also to be technical it was only last yr that Vino and others disgraced the Astana team name. Prior to that it was Liberty Siguros.


No, after the Saiz/Liberty fiasco the Kaskh's took over the team. in 2006 they assured the ASO that the team was a new team and had no connection to Operation Puerto. The then showed up to the tour with 6 riders on the OP list.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Since you are now up to speed on the truth could you do it for me? :idea:


Oh, but it's a great story and you tell it so well. Is the truth? I'm not convinced.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

roadieKill said:


> If its anything that would most likely be it. Unfortuanely Bruyneel and company is guilty by association rather than guilty by past wrong doings.


You really think this is like a couple of kids on the playground who can't play nice together? ASO is a business first and foremost, they're not going to take steps that could potentially hurt their business just because they don't "like" Bruyneel.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> No, after the Saiz/Liberty fiasco the Kaskh's took over the team. in 2006 they assured the ASO that the team was a new team and had no connection to Operation Puerto. The then showed up to the tour with 6 riders on the OP list.


either way it was 2 diff teams and 2 diff directeurs


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

roadieKill said:


> either way it was 2 diff teams and 2 diff directeurs


Nope, same team, same owners and management. Nikolay Proskurin and Daniyal Akhmetov founded the team and still run it.....although Akhmetov is pretty busy with his dual job of Minister of defense and President of the Kazakh cycling federation. He did have enough time to negotiate (i.e. bribe) RCS and get into the Giro. Same guys who accused the ASO of a conspiracy for the Vino and Kash positives. Same guys who, as VP and President of the Federation gave Vino only a one year ban, when two is mandated. They even have the same doping doctor, Andres Blum, ex-Telekom Needle man. 

Yeah, I am sick of being a broken record but it is amazing that people still take a Johann Bruyneel press releases as fact.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> He did have enough time to negotiate (i.e. bribe) RCS and get into the Giro.


That's the first time I'd heard that one. Juicy!


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> You are kidding right? The 99 cortisone positive, The dumping of PED in the 2000 tour, and finally the 6 EPO positives from the 99 tour. While the Lance fans did their best to ignore these issues and pretend hey did not happen the ASO and most fans of procycling did not like it. When the EPO postives came out the ASO was very clear that they felt betrayed.


if theres any kidding its you kidding yourself with those perceived hearsays and innuendos with the 99 tour.
We all know EPO was NOT a banned substance in 99 and thou Lance and his doctors did say he was going thru cancer treatment that required infusions it didnt go to court, wont go to court end of story.
Youve been reading too many french papers and old ones at that. Give it up.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> You really think this is like a couple of kids on the playground who can't play nice together? ASO is a business first and foremost, they're not going to take steps that could potentially hurt their business just because they don't "like" Bruyneel.


Is it a business??? well then someone should tell Christian Prudhomme that.
Do you not think that discluding 3 top racers (contador, leippy and kloden) in the tour wont hurt your so-called business???
A big part of the tour is all about the 'defending champion'
Prudhomme has already be criticized for his decision to not let Astana ride by the UCI. But you think he cares?? No because his decision is more likely more personal than professional.
And the fact that the Giro let them ride even shows more that Prudhomme is making the mistake of his life.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

roadieKill said:


> Prudhomme has already be criticized for his decision to not let Astana ride by the UCI.


Do you have any idea what is going on here? Do you not understand ASO and the other organizers are in a struggle with the UCI over control of the sport?

Of course it was not ideal to exclude Astana, but the organizers seem to have taken the decision that excluding a ProTour team was the way to bring the ProTour issue to a boiling point. Last year it was Unibet, this year it is Astana. In addition, ASO has directly lost money as a result of Astana since a couple of countries, including Germany, aren't buying TV rights now as a result of their actions last year.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Roadiekill, just so you're in posession of the facts rather than some USDiacatana myths:

EPO was BANNED in 1999 - there simply wasn't an effective test for it - in fact the postives were part of a retroactive procedure to refine the EPO test and that is why they can't be used to sanction a rider, that was part of the testing protocol.

ARMSTRONG NEVER HAD A TUE FOR EPO, TESTOSTERONE, HGH OR ANYTHING ELSE - he gave an interview to Equipe in which he stated this AS A FACT. Since this came directly from ARMSTRONG'S MOUTH, are you CALLING HIM A LIAR??

The Tour doesn't need Astana - the vieweing figures from the US remain a paltry handful in comparison to the millions across Europe. If Versus threaten to cancel what little coverage their is because the US fans boycott the Tour because 'America's Favourite Team' isn't there, that aint going to hurt Prudhomme.If German TV threatens to stop coverage because of doping scandals, as they did last year, that's going to hurt Prudhomme because millions of Germans watch the race.

Viewing figures will be up this year because the core fans, the European fans, will tune in in the hope that this year will be cleaner, that there'll be a new star emerge (and, yes, why not a Frenchman - I'd like to see Gadret go well), that the racing will be full on and exciting and the best man will win. Contador may not be there but Cunego will ride and, if he adds the Tour to his Giro, 2 Romandies, Amstel Gold and 2 Tours of Trentino then he'll have the palmares of a real great.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

roadieKill said:


> if theres any kidding its you kidding yourself with those perceived hearsays and innuendos with the 99 tour.
> We all know EPO was NOT a banned substance in 99 and thou Lance and his doctors did say he was going thru cancer treatment that required infusions it didnt go to court, wont go to court end of story.
> Youve been reading too many french papers and old ones at that. Give it up.


Bianchigirl answered it pretty well.

The fact is Lance's Urine tested positive for EPO. He escape sanction on a technicality but the samples were still positive. Lance has done a good job spinning his "French Conspiracy" theory. luckily this has only worked with his army of followers in the US, most cycling fans worldwide saw it as further proof he doped. I am sure if you read the real background on the postives you would change your mind.

The ASO was offended, saw it as proof they had been cheated.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

roadieKill said:


> Is it a business??? well then someone should tell Christian Prudhomme that.
> Do you not think that discluding 3 top racers (contador, leippy and kloden) in the tour wont hurt your so-called business???
> A big part of the tour is all about the 'defending champion'
> Prudhomme has already be criticized for his decision to not let Astana ride by the UCI. But you think he cares?? No because his decision is more likely more personal than professional.
> And the fact that the Giro let them ride even shows more that Prudhomme is making the mistake of his life.


If they ride for the team that has done more to devalue your product then any other over the last 3 years you would be foolish to let them do it again.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Do you have any idea what is going on here? Do you not understand ASO and the other organizers are in a struggle with the UCI over control of the sport?
> 
> Of course it was not ideal to exclude Astana, but the organizers seem to have taken the decision that excluding a ProTour team was the way to bring the ProTour issue to a boiling point. Last year it was Unibet, this year it is Astana. In addition, ASO has directly lost money as a result of Astana since a couple of countries, including Germany, aren't buying TV rights now as a result of their actions last year.


yes i know whats been happening. And im sure the acquirement of the Vuelta has got the UCI boiling over too.
And yes im aware of the ARD


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> The fact is Lance's Urine tested positive for EPO. He escape sanction on a technicality but the samples were still positive. Lance has done a good job spinning his "French Conspiracy" theory. luckily this has only worked with his army of followers in the US, most cycling fans worldwide saw it as further proof he doped. I am sure if you read the real background on the postives you would change your mind.


I guess you could say he escaped sanction on a technicality, but only if you consider an unverifiable lab experiment that didn't attempt to meet any testing standards to be both a positive test, and a technicality. That's just a flat out lie. What do you call a positive test that is also a technicality? You call it bullshit. Interesting, but bullshit. There was never any sanction possible on those experiments, so Lance didn't need to "escape" it in any fashion.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Bianchigirl said:


> The Tour doesn't need Astana - the vieweing figures from the US remain a paltry handful in comparison to the millions across Europe. If Versus threaten to cancel what little coverage their is because the US fans boycott the Tour because 'America's Favourite Team' isn't there, that aint going to hurt Prudhomme.If German TV threatens to stop coverage because of doping scandals, as they did last year, that's going to hurt Prudhomme because millions of Germans watch the race.
> 
> Viewing figures will be up this year because the core fans, the European fans, will tune in in the hope that this year will be cleaner, that there'll be a new star emerge (and, yes, why not a Frenchman - I'd like to see Gadret go well), that the racing will be full on and exciting and the best man will win. Contador may not be there but Cunego will ride and, if he adds the Tour to his Giro, 2 Romandies, Amstel Gold and 2 Tours of Trentino then he'll have the palmares of a real great.


Astana is not a US team
If anything the banning will hurt more so the spaniards than any americans


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Roadkill, many points well and truly missed...


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

He didn't need to 'escape' it - but he had to make damn sure those positives were discredited once he realised he was up to his neck in it.


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

Bianchigirl, the Spain is a big market for the Tour too... And they are not happy about Contador not being allowed to defend his title.
The decision to ban Astana will hurt ASO, as it turns away many fans, regardless what country they are from. 
I don't know if I'd watch a Major in golf where Tiger was not allowed to defend his title, or in tennis where Federer was not allowed to defend his title.......
Remember, Astana's non invitation had nothing to do with doping, since we have other teams who had some, eh, problems too last years and anyway they are in there now...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> He didn't need to 'escape' it - but he had to make damn sure those positives were discredited once he realised he was up to his neck in it.


Will you ever learn how to reply to a specific post?

The UCI appointed their own investigator, Emile Vrijman, who quickly discredited the tests. Amazingly, he did it without Armstrong's help. You can read the report here: http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf. I'll save you some time:



> The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L’Equipe article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this report. While the testing conducted may
> have been useful for research purposes - which remains to be determined – the failure of the underlying research to comply with any applicable standard and the deficiencies in the report render it completely irresponsible for anyone involved in doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were reported constitute evidence of anything. To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with r-EPO or contamination by other samples. The investigator recommends the UCI to refrain from initiating any disciplinary actions whatsoever regarding those riders alleged to have been responsible for causing one or more alleged ‘positive’ findings, on the basis of the confidential reports of the LNDD ‘Recherche EPO Tour de France 1998’ and ‘Recherche EPO Tour de France 1999’, and to inform all of the riders involved that no action will be taken based on the research testing by the LNDD.
> ...
> 
> The analyses of the urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France were conducted by the LNDD for research purposes and did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing. The results summarized in the LNDD reports however, are questionable in a number of other ways and for a number of other reasons as well. The investigator has studied those summaries and finds them deficient and not credible in a number of ways. The research reports are merely summaries, while the underlying iso-elctropherograms and other essential documents - necessary to evaluate the findings presented in both reports - have not been produced. The process that generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient that it would be improper in this report to discuss these reports in more detail as it would give the reported results more credibility than they could possibly merit.


The bottom line: this is a load of BS. Lance may be guilty as sin, but this proves <i>nothing</i>. The message: If you want to catch cheaters and have any credibility, don't try to cheat the system. Imagine if all this testing had been done above board and following doping control standards, and it had produced the same result. Imagine. But it wasn't. And it didn't. It's BS. Repeating the lies don't make them true.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

In the bigger picture, it hurts cycling because cash-rich sponsors on the outside looking in are seeing the best funded team with the DS that has the best record in modern tour history plus the defending champion getting left out of the only race that guarantees ROI for sponsors. If ASO is leaving the tour out for the reasons that members on this forum say they are (the owners being the same, Johan supposedly being dirty, etc.) then ASO needs to come out and say it in plain language. 

ASO's not acknowlegeing all the changes that Astana made and snubbing them is only going to make it harder for other teams to get their sponsors to continue as well as finding new sponsors. What company looking for sporting exposure would take a financial risk on a sport with not guarantees? I bet Slipstream and High Road would agree as they are in the Tour but still being funded by private contributors, not a title sponsor.

BTW, that's a good find Mohair, I'm sure the anti-Armstrong set will say that the report was written by someone on LA's payroll.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Aquamarinos said:


> Bianchigirl, the Spain is a big market for the Tour too... And they are not happy about Contador not being allowed to defend his title.
> The decision to ban Astana will hurt ASO, as it turns away many fans, regardless what country they are from.
> I don't know if I'd watch a Major in golf where Tiger was not allowed to defend his title, or in tennis where Federer was not allowed to defend his title.......
> Remember, Astana's non invitation had nothing to do with doping, since we have other teams who had some, eh, problems too last years and anyway they are in there now...


thank you, finally someone else that sees my point

Prudhomme has got a different agenda. What that is no one really knows but him. But banning Astana just for the fact of their name is weak. Not looking at the participants and their history with doping only causes conflicts as such were all seeing now. Astana winning the Giro proves such that they are clean. They are under new management and have proven so. Astana will go on to win the Vuelta too (probably) and in the end. Prudhomme will end up being the mule


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

I'm not saying Astana is clean, I have no idea of that, BUT they are the only team together with CSC, HR and Slippy to have an internal anti-doping program. So I assume they are clean.

Regardless what people will say, I give these teams more credit than Rabobank or Caisse...


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

davidka said:


> In the bigger picture, it hurts cycling because cash-rich sponsors on the outside looking in are seeing the best funded team with the DS that has the best record in modern tour history plus the defending champion getting left out of the only race that guarantees ROI for sponsors. If ASO is leaving the tour out for the reasons that members on this forum say they are (the owners being the same, Johan supposedly being dirty, etc.) then ASO needs to come out and say it in plain language.
> 
> ASO's not acknowlegeing all the changes that Astana made and snubbing them is only going to make it harder for other teams to get their sponsors to continue as well as finding new sponsors. What company looking for sporting exposure would take a financial risk on a sport with not guarantees? I bet Slipstream and High Road would agree as they are in the Tour but still being funded by private contributors, not a title sponsor.
> 
> BTW, that's a good find Mohair, I'm sure the anti-Armstrong set will say that the report was written by someone on LA's payroll.


agreed :thumbsup:


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

davidka said:


> In the bigger picture, it hurts cycling because cash-rich sponsors on the outside looking in are seeing the best funded team with the DS that has the best record in modern tour history plus the defending champion getting left out of the only race that guarantees ROI for sponsors.


The problem is no one acts in the "bigger picture", they act in their own interests. It is not in ASO or any big organizers interest to allow the UCI to go forward with the ProTour because if successful it would allow the UCI to make or break races (which it already did to several smaller races, particularly in Spain) and put them in a position to "steal" from the organizers by essentially extorting money from them for a spot on the ProTour calendar.

It isn't ASO's problem if cycling teams can't find sponsors (they clearly can as there is no shortage of teams willing to take a place in the Tour or Giro, for example). It is incumbent upon teams to act in a manner that makes them attractive to race organizers so that they get an invite and in turn can attract sponsors. Astana screwed up because they did something that made them unattractive to the biggest organizer at a time when the organizers wanted a team to exclude in order to spoil the UCI's ProTour party.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I guess you could say he escaped sanction on a technicality, but only if you consider an unverifiable lab experiment that didn't attempt to meet any testing standards to be both a positive test, and a technicality. That's just a flat out lie. What do you call a positive test that is also a technicality? You call it bullshit. Interesting, but bullshit. There was never any sanction possible on those experiments, so Lance didn't need to "escape" it in any fashion.


The only flat out lie were the long list told by Lance to cover up the postives. The facts are his samples, as well as those of a bunch of other riders, tested positive for EPO. How did the EPO get there? The only explanation offered is the vague "French conspiracy" theory. 

Do you really believe this? The fact that a bunch of samples from the height of of the EPO era tested positive should not be a surprise. Certainly the French Conspiracy/Nazi Frogman/Space Alien theory is possible, but most rational person would say the obvious, the EPO was there because the riders took EPO.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Aquamarinos said:


> Remember, Astana's non invitation had nothing to do with doping, since we have other teams who had some, eh, problems too last years and anyway they are in there now...


No team had two riders in the top ten test positive for a doping method that can only be described as institutionalized.
No team had 5 riders test positive last season
No team showed up to the 06 tour with 5 riders on the Operation Puerto list
When caught doping none of the other team accused the ASO for a conspiracy to take down their riders AND abuse of human rights.
No team hired "The Hog"


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> In the bigger picture, it hurts cycling because cash-rich sponsors on the outside looking in are seeing the best funded team with the DS that has the best record in modern tour history plus the defending champion getting left out of the only race that guarantees ROI for sponsors. If ASO is leaving the tour out for the reasons that members on this forum say they are (the owners being the same, Johan supposedly being dirty, etc.) then ASO needs to come out and say it in plain language.
> 
> ASO's not acknowlegeing all the changes that Astana made and snubbing them is only going to make it harder for other teams to get their sponsors to continue as well as finding new sponsors. What company looking for sporting exposure would take a financial risk on a sport with not guarantees? I bet Slipstream and High Road would agree as they are in the Tour but still being funded by private contributors, not a title sponsor.
> 
> BTW, that's a good find Mohair, I'm sure the anti-Armstrong set will say that the report was written by someone on LA's payroll.


I understand your point, short term it would make sense to ignore the past and let Astana in, but the ASO does not think short term. The Tour has been around for 105 years, if it is to be around for 105 more the short term pain of excluding committed dopers like "The Hog"and Astana makes much sense. 

The Vrijman was roundly dismissed by many in the anti doping world as yet more evidence of the UCI unwillingness to address the issue and yet another cover up. . Not only was the author suspect as he had made his living defending dopers but his conclusions were a joke. WADA said "The Vrijman Report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,"

You had the idea that the ASO was trying to drive down the price of the Vuelta in order to buy them. Not an unusual tactic. Many think Verbruggen was trying the same thing with the Tour last year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article2155568.ece


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> I understand your point, short term it would make sense to ignore the past and let Astana in, but the ASO does not think short term. The Tour has been around for 105 years, if it is to be around for 105 more the short term pain of excluding committed dopers like "The Hog"and Astana makes much sense.


 I think the mistake that ASO has made is showing inconsistency. Cofidis had a positive, they're in. Rabobank had the Rasmussen fiasco, which I think is as bad all all the previous Astana stuff combined- he was in the yellow jersey, but Rabobank is in. Astana is not in. Some think that JB is dirty but his riders have never brought controversy to the race, for their purposes, his rep is perfect. If the sport on a whole is damaged because of what's been going on then the advertising dollars will drop for a decade or more. If potential team sponsors stay away, the quality of the teams will drop and the Tour and cycling as a whole could fall back 20 years in terms of exposure.

I'm not saying that ASO should turn a blind eye, on the contrary. They know that every edition of the race will have cheating risks, it's (the Tour) importance almost guarantees it. They know good and well that Astana is no more of a risk (probably less) than any French team in the race. If they were to take the risk of allowing Astana to race they would have the defending champ story, the Andreas Kloden out of Jan Ulrich's shadow story and the piece of mind that this year's winner wouldn't have an asterisk next to his name because the fans were wondering "what if?" The ASO is in a position to lead, I think they should, but not by selectively snubbing one of the biggest teams in the world.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> I think the mistake that ASO has made is showing inconsistency. Cofidis had a positive, they're in. Rabobank had the Rasmussen fiasco, which I think is as bad all all the previous Astana stuff combined- he was in the yellow jersey, but Rabobank is in. Astana is not in. Some think that JB is dirty but his riders have never brought controversy to the race, for their purposes, his rep is perfect. If the sport on a whole is damaged because of what's been going on then the advertising dollars will drop for a decade or more. If potential team sponsors stay away, the quality of the teams will drop and the Tour and cycling as a whole could fall back 20 years in terms of exposure.
> 
> I'm not saying that ASO should turn a blind eye, on the contrary. They know that every edition of the race will have cheating risks, it's (the Tour) importance almost guarantees it. They know good and well that Astana is no more of a risk (probably less) than any French team in the race. If they were to take the risk of allowing Astana to race they would have the defending champ story, the Andreas Kloden out of Jan Ulrich's shadow story and the piece of mind that this year's winner wouldn't have an asterisk next to his name because the fans were wondering "what if?" The ASO is in a position to lead, I think they should, but not by selectively snubbing one of the biggest teams in the world.


Please, don't make me write the long list again...I do agree Rabobank should be on the edge, even without a positive. But they are not anywhere close to Astana's history of embarrassment....but there is still time and the results of the investigation of the Austrian doping lab could change things.

JB riders have brought huge controversy to the race. The backdated TUE to escape the cortisone positive, the Actovigen dumping, Beltran's collapse from "heat exhaustion", but more then anything Lance's 6 samples from the 99 tour testing positive for EPO. At the time Jean-Marie Leblanc said
*
“For the first time, and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts, someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body,” Leblanc said.

“The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L’Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled.” *

You also forget that Johann himself was involved in systematic doping while at Once, while wearing the Yellow jersey, Something Zulle and others testified to under oath.

You could just as easily put an asterisk next to any winner for the last 20 years, or next to any sprinter who won a stage when Chipo was not invited, or last year and 2006 because Basso, Ulrich, etc. were not there.

The ASO has led, by saying no to Astana.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Aquamarinos said:


> I'm not saying Astana is clean, I have no idea of that, BUT they are the only team together with CSC, HR and Slippy to have an internal anti-doping program. So I assume they are clean.
> 
> Regardless what people will say, I give these teams more credit than Rabobank or Caisse...


Unfortunately for Astana the internal doping is too late. ASO needed an example for this year. They already hated Bruyneel for all the suspicion and rumors around him and his riders (Contador--OP, Liberty, etc) and they hated Astana for all the scandals they caused. Bruyneel going to Astana with most of his team just made it that much easier to give them the boot. If Discovery was still around then maybe Rabobank would have suffered instead of Astana.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

I don't understand why people want Astana back in. They were obviously dopers and have hired people of questionable character, both riders and management. Personally I think a year in the wilderness sends the right message. F##k with us and we f##k with you. Do the right think and you will be OK.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> Please, don't make me write the long list again...I do agree Rabobank should be on the edge, even without a positive. But they are not anywhere close to Astana's history of embarrassment....but there is still time and the results of the investigation of the Austrian doping lab could change things.
> 
> JB riders have brought huge controversy to the race. The backdated TUE to escape the cortisone positive, the Actovigen dumping, Beltran's collapse from "heat exhaustion", but more then anything Lance's 6 samples from the 99 tour testing positive for EPO. At the time Jean-Marie Leblanc said
> *
> ...


 We all know "the list", none of it is solid enough to be considered objective and none of it has ever resulted in a rider under JB being sanctioned. Leblanc (not a scientist) confirming an experiment from a "leaky lab" as a scientific fact is just another example of how shortsighted ASO can be. If anything, Johan is the safest bet in the sport! All this speculation of drugs in the team and never a positive? Never a sanction? (sarcasm there)

My point is that by not including Astana the ASO is sending a clear message to any would be sponsor that their investment brings zero guarantees and that they should go look at buying billboard space at a soccer stadium or on the side of a Golfer's bag. They should have chosen this time to take the risk and to forgive and tolerate. This sport won't exist on anywhere near the scale it does without sponsors.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> We all know "the list",


That is not the list I was referring to, this is the list I was referring to.... the list of reasons why Astana is out of the tour

No other team had two riders in the top ten test positive for a doping method that can only be described as institutionalized.
No other team had 5 riders test positive last season
Team Telekom let go its doping doctors like Andres Blum who worked in their internal doping program, Astana hired him
Astana showed up to the 06 tour with 5 riders on the Operation Puerto list, more then any other team
When caught doping Astana accused the ASO for a conspiracy to take down their riders AND abuse of human rights. 

No other team has done more to embarrassing the ASO and ignore the problem of doping then Astana. 



davidka said:


> none of it is solid enough to be considered objective and none of it has ever resulted in a rider under JB being sanctioned. Leblanc (not a scientist) confirming an experiment from a "leaky lab" as a scientific fact is just another example of how shortsighted ASO can be. If anything, Johan is the safest bet in the sport! All this speculation of drugs in the team and never a positive? Never a sanction? (sarcasm there)


You said that none of of JB riders embarrassed the ASO, I gave you a list of events that the ASO felt embarrassed them. While you may excuse them as part of a French conspiracy the ASO, and much of cycling, did not dismiss them as easily.



davidka said:


> My point is that by not including Astana the ASO is sending a clear message to any would be sponsor that their investment brings zero guarantees and that they should go look at buying billboard space at a soccer stadium or on the side of a Golfer's bag. They should have chosen this time to take the risk and to forgive and tolerate. This sport won't exist on anywhere near the scale it does without sponsors.


The facts are the ASO, and the other GT have always reserved the right to invite who they like. The non-invites are always followed by the same arguments but the sport survives. It went on when Chipo's team was held out, when the defending champion Pantani was denied (Until UCI intervened) and it will be fine without Astana and "The Hog"


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I know what list you were referring to. You are right, they do have the right to invite whoever they like and I wouldn't force them to invite a team they didn't want, even if I could. The Astana of old did have lots of controversy but I don't see how ASO was "embarassed". The team cheated, that's not ASO's fault. Cheating happens in all sports, cycling is just trying harder to reduce it.

Cipo's exclusion is an excellent example of this same type of thinking. Cipo was a guarantee that the first week of the Tour would earn top dollar from it's advertisers but since ASO's "feelings" were hurt by his statement that he wouldn't try to finish they left him out and lots of advertisers looking at other options. Maybe it's the ASO's "feelings" that are getting in the way of professional thinking?

My worry is that we could see a virtual nightmare scenario where a team like High Road folds while in the lead of the Pro Tour points because these types of actions have scared away so many sponsors that even the best organizations won't be able to find sponsorship. We all love this sport but it would be a real shame if it's reduced back to an amatuer sport.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> The Astana of old did have lots of controversy but I don't see how ASO was "embarassed". .


 There is no "Astana of Old" The same people run the team Nikolay Proskurin and Daniyal Akhmetov still run the team. Blum was the doping doctor last year and is still there this year. It was Akhmetov who secured the Giro Invite, Johann had nothing to do with it. After Biver was made the fall guy Proskurin made it clear they would not lose control of the team to an outsider. 

The ASO is not making its decision based on feelings, it is smart business. If they continue to allow teams like Astana in the race their product will continue to be devalued. Another fiasco this year and it wil be more then ADR that pulls the plug. 

Don't worry about High Road, they walked from Telekom with 24 million Euros, They will be fine. As long as the teams that will not change are enabled nothing will change. The way I see the future is different, those teams that do business the old way will not attract sponsorship....accept from third world dictatorships.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> The only flat out lie were the long list told by Lance to cover up the postives. The facts are his samples, as well as those of a bunch of other riders, tested positive for EPO. How did the EPO get there? The only explanation offered is the vague "French conspiracy" theory.
> 
> Do you really believe this? The fact that a bunch of samples from the height of of the EPO era tested positive should not be a surprise. Certainly the French Conspiracy/Nazi Frogman/Space Alien theory is possible, but most rational person would say the obvious, the EPO was there because the riders took EPO.


Read my post below. You are spreading lies. The EPO "positives" were totally discredited by an independent investigator hired by the UCI. Read the report. It goes into detail about why the tests were bogus and why they are completely meaningless, even for their intended use as research. Read the report, and tell me you still think it was all above board and valid. It's fine it you want to deceive yourself, but stop spreading lies as if they were truth. Less informed people may end up believing you.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

So Kazakhstan is a 3rd world dictatorship? I was beginning to agree with your post until you ruined it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Read my post below. You are spreading lies. The EPO "positives" were totally discredited by an independent investigator hired by the UCI. Read the report. It goes into detail about why the tests were bogus and why they are completely meaningless, even for their intended use as research. Read the report, and tell me you still think it was all above board and valid. It's fine it you want to deceive yourself, but stop spreading lies as if they were truth. Less informed people may end up believing you.


I read your post. You are deceiving yourself. They were far from discredited and the investigator was not independent. I agree with WADA's assessment of the report.
*
"The Vrijman Report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,"* 

It was yet another example of the UCI covering up doping. Go ahead and believe the French conspiracy theory, you are in the minority of cycling fans.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> So Kazakhstan is a 3rd world dictatorship? I was beginning to agree with your post until you ruined it.


You are right, that may be a bit harsh, although not far from fact. In June 2007, Kazakhstan's parliament passed a law granting President Nursultan Nazarbayev lifetime powers and privileges, including access to future presidents, immunity from criminal prosecution, and influence over domestic and foreign policy

Lets say 2nd world.....and use Kleptocracy instead of Dictatorship.


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> There is no "Astana of Old" The same people run the team Nikolay Proskurin and Daniyal Akhmetov still run the team. Blum was the doping doctor last year and is still there this year. It was Akhmetov who secured the Giro Invite, Johann had nothing to do with it. After Biver was made the fall guy Proskurin made it clear they would not lose control of the team to an outsider.
> 
> The ASO is not making its decision based on feelings, it is smart business. If they continue to allow teams like Astana in the race their product will continue to be devalued. Another fiasco this year and it wil be more then ADR that pulls the plug.
> 
> Don't worry about High Road, they walked from Telekom with 24 million Euros, They will be fine. As long as the teams that will not change are enabled nothing will change. The way I see the future is different, those teams that do business the old way will not attract sponsorship....accept from third world dictatorships.


third world dictatorships?????


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Aquamarinos, there is actually one very good reason for boycotting Astana, the team, the representative of Kazakhstan, the country - the latter's appalling human rights record has earned it a position as one of the worst dictatorships in the world. And before you say that the team is not political, Daniyal Akhmetov is the ex Prime Minister and current defence minister of Kazakhstan


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> I read your post. You are deceiving yourself. They were far from discredited and the investigator was not independent. I agree with WADA's assessment of the report.
> *
> "The Vrijman Report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,"*
> 
> It was yet another example of the UCI covering up doping. Go ahead and believe the French conspiracy theory, you are in the minority of cycling fans.


Gee, what a surprise. WADA (i.e., Dick Pound) didn't like the report. Anyone who read the report would have expected that reaction from WADA. What else are they going to say? "The report is 100% accurate and we admit all our mistakes and wrongdoing?" Yeah, right.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> although Akhmetov is pretty busy with his dual job of Minister of defense and President of the Kazakh cycling federation. He did have enough time to negotiate (i.e. bribe) RCS and get into the Giro.


Link? Evidence? Too much to ask?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Gee, what a surprise. WADA (i.e., Dick Pound) didn't like the report. Anyone who read the report would have expected that reaction from WADA. What else are they going to say? "The report is 100% accurate and we admit all our mistakes and wrongdoing?" Yeah, right.


I am not sure what your background is but I would assume that WADA is a better judge when it comes to dopeing related issues. The vast majority of the European press and fans agreed with them and dismissed the report, and the "French Conspiracy" defense, as yet another cover up by the UCI....but I guess if you only get your news from Paceline.com press releases you may not have caught that.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> I am not sure what your background is but I would assume that WADA is a better judge when it comes to dopeing related issues. The vast majority of the European press and fans agreed with them and dismissed the report, and the "French Conspiracy" defense, as yet another cover up by the UCI....but I guess if you only get your news from Paceline.com press releases you may not have caught that.


You obviously didn't read the report, and have no plans to. That's okay. I understand that you are afraid that it may crumble the foundation of your lies, and make you question everything you have been spouting for years. I can only imagine that you don't want to feel the same feelings you had when you discovered that Santa Claus wasn't real. I'm glad you finally admitted that the opinions of the fans and the press are more important to you than actual facts. After all, when have the fans and the press ever been wrong?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> You obviously didn't read the report, and have no plans to. That's okay. I understand that you are afraid that it may crumble the foundation of your lies, and make you question everything you have been spouting for years. I can only imagine that you don't want to feel the same feelings you had when you discovered that Santa Claus wasn't real. I'm glad you finally admitted that the opinions of the fans and the press are more important to you than actual facts. After all, when have the fans and the press ever been wrong?


Do you honestly believe that Lance did not use EPO? 

I did read the report, and I agreed with WADA and most other independent observers that it was a piece of junk.I would ask you if you read any of the multiple sources that condemned it? I respect the opinion of experts more then apologist like Vrijman, the UCI, and anonymously internet posters who struggle to hold on to the myth.


----------



## roadieKill (Jun 6, 2008)

Bianchigirl said:


> Aquamarinos, there is actually one very good reason for boycotting Astana, the team, the representative of Kazakhstan, the country - the latter's appalling human rights record has earned it a position as one of the worst dictatorships in the world.


Hey you should switch out Astana and change it to China and then present your argument to the IOC. Maybe they will give a ****
Anymore made up excuses you wanna make for the Astana banning??


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

roadieKill said:


> Hey you should switch out Astana and change it to China and then present your argument to the IOC. Maybe they will give a ****
> Anymore made up excuses you wanna make for the Astana banning??


I've seen Bianchigirl's comments on this before. I believe she asks us to boycott Astana. I've not seen her suggest their human rights issues are reason for their having been banned by ASO.

JSR


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Do you honestly believe that Lance did not use EPO?
> 
> I did read the report, and I agreed with WADA and most other independent observers that it was a piece of junk.I would ask you if you read any of the multiple sources that condemned it? I respect the opinion of experts more then apologist like Vrijman, the UCI, and anonymously internet posters who struggle to hold on to the myth.


You are the biggest creator and spreader of myth on this board. I still love your post about Lance being a "super responder." That was classic. When all else fails, make it up. Lance is a doper? But wait, so is everyone else, so what's the problem? Well, Lance is a super responder!!! I have to give you credit for creativity. That was good.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> You are the biggest creator and spreader of myth on this board. I still love your post about Lance being a "super responder." That was classic. When all else fails, make it up. Lance is a doper? But wait, so is everyone else, so what's the problem? Well, Lance is a super responder!!! I have to give you credit for creativity. That was good.


I will assume by your non response that you, like most cycling fans, think that Lance doped....but will do anything to preserve the myth. 

You appear to belittle things you do not understand. Super responder is a common term not just in doping but in drug trials. It is used when you have one patent responds better to a drug then another. A good example would be the recent of Moletta's father at the Giro with a car full of ******. A 2006 study published by the Journal of Applied Physiology and reported in Science Daily claimed that the drug can significantly enhance performance at altitude in some cyclists.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/may08/may23news

the ****** group improved its performance over a six kilometre time trial at altitude by 15% over the group given a placebo. The study said that the ****** group was split into "responders" and "non-responders". Some subjects had shown a more marked decrease in performance at altitude than the others with placebo, and when they took ******, the difference went away. 

The same thing happens with EPO 

-It is a genetic drug so each person responds differently to it
-The UCI limit hinders a rider who has a naturally high Hct as they would not benefit from the increase as much as a rider with a lower natural Hct
-Riders with denser musculature like Lance, Ulrich, and even Pantani would benefit more then a sighter rider. Much has been made of disaperance of the specialized climber from the sport and EPO being the cause, Cyclesport had a full feature on it.

This may all be over your head, but it does not mean it is a lie.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I used to try to debate you seriously, but you can't do it. You resort to strawman arguments, you love to change the subject, you try to put words in my mouth. Well, from now on, I'm calling you on your BS, wherever you spew it. Not that it matters. You always have some pithy response with half-truths, cherry picked facts and conjecture masquerading as facts.

Where did you get your medical training? What is your medical specialty? I'll bet I have more medical training that you do, seeing as I passed the Red Cross first aid course and I am certified to perform CPR. But unlike you, I would never pretend to be a doctor or parrot medical information that I read in some magazine or on a cycling site. Doctor, it hurts when I laugh.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I used to try to debate you seriously, but you can't do it. You resort to strawman arguments, you love to change the subject, you try to put words in my mouth. Well, from now on, I'm calling you on your BS, wherever you spew it. Not that it matters. You always have some pithy response with half-truths, cherry picked facts and conjecture masquerading as facts.
> 
> Where did you get your medical training? What is your medical specialty? I'll bet I have more medical training that you do, seeing as I passed the Red Cross first aid course and I am certified to perform CPR. But unlike you, I would never pretend to be a doctor or parrot medical information that I read in some magazine or on a cycling site. Doctor, it hurts when I laugh.


Congratulation on your merit badge, you are 1/2 way to eagle scout. 

You have never debated me seriously. If you do not believe what I am writing provide some alternative studies that show I am wrong instead of resorting to insults.

I see you have 10,000 + posts her so I doubt you have much time to read away from the computer. If your laptop ever fails go pick up the book "The Death Of Marco Pantani" It would be a good place to start if would would like to learn about a part of cycling you clearly have no knowledge of.

Once you are done with that come back and I will give you your next homework assignment.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Congratulation on your merit badge, you are 1/2 way to eagle scout.
> 
> If you do not believe what I am writing provide some alternative studies that show I am wrong instead of resorting to insults.


In that vein, could you provide a link to support your assertion that Akmatov committed the crime of bribery?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Congratulation on your merit badge, you are 1/2 way to eagle scout.
> 
> You have never debated me seriously. If you do not believe what I am writing provide some alternative studies that show I am wrong instead of resorting to insults.
> 
> ...


Just as I thought. No medical training whatsoever. That sure snaps all your posts about the science of doping into perspective. You aren't qualified to interpret it or apply it and you can barely even discuss it with any credibility. Your signature should be "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the Internet."

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a pilot. I read books, magazines, watched movies, etc. I knew everything about planes and flying. But if you put me into the cockpit and told me to fly, I couldn't do it. I had bits and pieces of random knowledge, and I sounded like I knew what I was doing, but the bottom line was that I wasn't a pilot, and I couldn't fly a plane. But unlike you, I never went around leading people to believe I was a pilot, and that I could fly a plane. There's a big difference. 

In the words of Alexander Pope, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> In that vein, could you provide a link to support your assertion that Akmatov committed the crime of bribery?


Is that the only issue you had? I will assume you agreed with the rest of what I wrote. 

Perhaps bribe was too strong, it sounds better in Italian. tangente. I was in Italy during the week proceeding the Giro and consensus among the non-RCS media was that this was how Astana had achieved their entry. NGC is filing lawsuit based on this so more should be coming out, unless RCS settles....which they likely will


----------



## EFaber (Mar 30, 2005)

*Astana*

Is essentially banned (right or wrong) for winning...oh and not having any French riders. LOL!!

Leipheimer kicking ass in the Dauphine will only make those sour pusses at ASO have an excuse built in. I can't say I blame them. Bruyneel & Armstrong + Bruyneel & Contador = 8 out of 9 TDF's and now a Giro and very possibly the Dauphine.

Could be that he (Bruyneel) has (TSTK) "The **** that Kills!" (quote from Lance in Daniel Coyle's book "Lance's War" and ASO smells something funny. Could it be in the Chamois Creme?

EFaber


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Just as I thought. No medical training whatsoever. That sure snaps all your posts about the science of doping into perspective. You aren't qualified to interpret it or apply it and you can barely even discuss it with any credibility. Your signature should be "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the Internet."
> 
> When I was a kid, I wanted to be a pilot. I read books, magazines, watched movies, etc. I knew everything about planes and flying. But if you put me into the cockpit and told me to fly, I couldn't do it. I had bits and pieces of random knowledge, and I sounded like I knew what I was doing, but the bottom line was that I wasn't a pilot, and I couldn't fly a plane. But unlike you, I never went around leading people to believe I was a pilot, and that I could fly a plane. There's a big difference.
> 
> In the words of Alexander Pope, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."



I am not sure if your realize how silly you sound. 

I have been involved in cycling at all levels for 25 years. 6 of those years I spent living and racing in Europe. With the exception of Dr. Ferrari there are few doctors who knew more about performance enhancing drugs then some of the soigner and riders I know. While I am sure it is not spoken of at the local century rides and Tri's you participate in it used to be a common topic amongst some of the people I spent time with. You would have a barely literate guy who only other choice of work was a coal mine or carpet factory who knew how to "prepare" better then anyone.

Do you think you have to have a Dr. in front of your name in order to know how riders dope or the history of the sport?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> I am not sure if your realize how silly you sound.
> 
> I have been involved in cycling at all levels for 25 years. 6 of those years I spent living and racing in Europe. With the exception of Dr. Ferrari there are few doctors who knew more about performance enhancing drugs then some of the soigner and riders I know. While I am sure it is not spoken of at the local century rides and Tri's you participate in it used to be a common topic amongst some of the people I spent time with. You would have a barely literate guy who only other choice of work was a coal mine or carpet factory who knew how to "prepare" better then anyone.
> 
> Do you think you have to have a Dr. in front of your name in order to know how riders dope or the history of the sport?


So you are saying is that you are NOT an expert on this stuff, and what little knowledge you have is anecdotal and comes from barely literate guys and soigniers. That's a good background to discuss medical matters and doping science. Do you realize how silly you sound? 

Oh, and I will assume you agreed with the rest of what I wrote.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> So you are saying is that you are NOT an expert on this stuff, and what little knowledge you have is anecdotal and comes from barely literate guys and soigniers. That's a good background to discuss medical matters and doping science. Do you realize how silly you sound?
> 
> Oh, and I will assume you agreed with the rest of what I wrote.


It appears your powers of comprehension are limited as that is clearly not what I wrote. It is also clear that your knowledge of the subject is limited to what you have read in Paceline press releases.

It appears you are not willing to discuss an actual topic but instead just attack me personally. Let me know when you evolve from that position.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> It appears your powers of comprehension are limited as that is clearly not what I wrote.


The irony of that statement is astounding. Go back and read your replies to my posts and count how many times you added stuff that I didn't say and how many times you "assumed" things. I'm sorry I backed you into a corner, but you made me do it. I'm tired of the airs you put on that imply that you are some sort of expert on this stuff. You're not, and now you've admitted as much.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Is that the only issue you had? I will assume you agreed with the rest of what I wrote.


No, but it's the issue I raised. 



bigpinkt said:


> Perhaps bribe was too strong, it sounds better in Italian. tangente. I was in Italy during the week proceeding the Giro and consensus among the non-RCS media was that this was how Astana had achieved their entry. NGC is filing lawsuit based on this so more should be coming out, unless RCS settles....which they likely will


Bribery is a crime. Is it a crime in Italy for one private entity to pay another private entity for entry into a by-invitation sporting event? If not, you accused someone of a crime when what you meant was that they paid for entry in a lawful manner. Perhaps he deserved it because of his association with Astana.


----------



## zphogan (Jan 27, 2007)

Bianchigirl said:


> Aquamarinos, there is actually one very good reason for boycotting Astana, the team, the representative of Kazakhstan, the country - the latter's appalling human rights record has earned it a position as one of the worst dictatorships in the world. And before you say that the team is not political, Daniyal Akhmetov is the ex Prime Minister and current defence minister of Kazakhstan


Laughable. Bianchigirl, your posts are so slanted and biased against Contador and Astana its hard to take you seriously. Bottom line, le tour is minus the best stage racing team in the world and it blows. ASO stinks (so does the UCI for that matter).


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> The irony of that statement is astounding. Go back and read your replies to my posts and count how many times you added stuff that I didn't say and how many times you "assumed" things. I'm sorry I backed you into a corner, but you made me do it. I'm tired of the airs you put on that imply that you are some sort of expert on this stuff. You're not, and now you've admitted as much.


It appears you are embarrassed, otherwise you would stick to debating the topic and not have to resort to insults. 

I have told you how I have gained insight into how the bike game works, how about yourself? Let me guess you have read "It's not about the bike " 3 times.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> No, but it's the issue I raised.
> 
> Bribery is a crime. Is it a crime in Italy for one private entity to pay another private entity for entry into a by-invitation sporting event? If not, you accused someone of a crime when what you meant was that they paid for entry in a lawful manner. Perhaps he deserved it because of his association with Astana.


You make a very good point. I am sure all Astana paid is an entry fee. Anyone who has entered a race knows that when you don't send you entry in on time that the price to enter often goes up. I am sure that Astana paid a pretty big late fee to enter such a big race 8 days before the start.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

For what it's worth - I know Bigpinkt (not his real name - duh!) and trust his input to this discussion, I believe he knows what he is talking about. Obviously, you do not share that view.

Let me just say that what he has posted on this board corroborates much of what I have learned from racing and being involved in cycling in Europe over the past 15 years. He has raced against many of people who are now coaching the peope that I and our junior racers race against. Drug use has been common, even for North American riders, and only seems to have gone down in recent years with the advent of more sustained longitudnal controls. I do not believe that there is a conspiracy to single out North American riders with faked or manipulated tests but rather that the string of positives and other findings (since the 1999 tests are not technically "positives") indicates widespread epo use and blood manipulation. I believe that Lance Armstrong doped to win - as did many others. 

But what I believe doesn't really matter to anyone but myself -- I am not a sanctioning body. I am not even a lawyer like I believe you to be (perhaps I am mistaken, but who isn't a lawyer these days?). I can only hope that one day I am proven wrong, but I am not optimistic given my track record for giving dopers the benefit of the doubt only to be proven wrong. 

In the meantime, lighten up on Bigpinkt. His experience counts for something, even if you do not agree on his conclusions or their delivery.


----------



## draftdodger (May 4, 2008)

Liggett keeps harping about Astana. Maybe he should worry about producing better race coverage, Cyclism Sunday, for the most part, is a complete bore.The Giro coverage was a disgrace. I don't think I've watched a sporting show with more commercials. Astana broke the rules, their out. If they get invited then one of the other teams should hire Rasmussen who would kick Operation Puerto Contador's ass all over the Alps again.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

philippec said:


> For what it's worth - I know Bigpinkt (not his real name - duh!) and trust his input to this discussion, I believe he knows what he is talking about. Obviously, you do not share that view.
> 
> Let me just say that what he has posted on this board corroborates much of what I have learned from racing and being involved in cycling in Europe over the past 15 years. He has raced against many of people who are now coaching the peope that I and our junior racers race against. Drug use has been common, even for North American riders, and only seems to have gone down in recent years with the advent of more sustained longitudnal controls. I do not believe that there is a conspiracy to single out North American riders with faked or manipulated tests but rather that the string of positives and other findings (since the 1999 tests are not technically "positives") indicates widespread epo use and blood manipulation. I believe that Lance Armstrong doped to win - as did many others.
> 
> ...


Nice post. I've been staying out of this discussion because I don't think that Astana's Giro performance really adds anything new to the debate we had when they were left out of the Tour in the first place. Yes, its obvious that ASOs decision is largely politically motivated, and personally, I wish they'd excluded Rabobank too (but not High Road or Cofidis), but I think that excluding Astana is reasonable given their legacy as Liberty Seguros, Astana-Wurth and Astana, and like Bigpinkt, I think that you don't have to scratch too deeply to see that the roots of the organisation are the same, even if the exterior appears to have changed - I don't think that Astana 2008 is a 'completely new' team. (I'm undecided on whether I think ASO are having an indirect dig at Bruyneel/Armstrong - that _would _be petty. I am in the "Lance almost certainly doped" camp though, so I can see how ASO might look at the 'new' Astana with a degree of cynicism). I think its important to note that ASO think that missing last years Vuelta means that Astana have paid their dues with regards to that race, even though as new 49% owners, they could have continued the Astana-bashing if they'd wanted. I take it as a sign that Astana will, assuming they remain scandal free, get a Tour invite next year. Finally, I don't think that excluding Astana will be the death of the Tour - in 5 years time it'll be forgotton. On the other hand, another summer of doping scandals probably will damage the Tour.


----------



## EFaber (Mar 30, 2005)

I agree with Phillipe C. that I believe Bigpinkt knows of what he speaks.

Now - Who is Bigpinkt? Inquiring minds want to know (well I want to know) From his title, There is a clue, his own self described experiences in the pro pelaton his mastery of the English language and tons of pictures in and around Italy (where he spends half the year) I have deduced the following:

bigpinkt is ANDY HAMPSTEN!

prove me wrong bigpinkt.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

EFaber said:


> I agree with Phillipe C. that I believe Bigpinkt knows of what he speaks.
> 
> Now - Who is Bigpinkt? Inquiring minds want to know (well I want to know) From his title, There is a clue, his own self described experiences in the pro pelaton his mastery of the English language and tons of pictures in and around Italy (where he spends half the year) I have deduced the following:
> 
> ...


No, not Andy. I have met him and been dropped by him back when I was a kid but should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

I started riding early but when I lived in Europe in my late teens where I caught the cycling bug. I came back to the US for college, dropped out to race full time, moved to Italy, and basically it became very clear my life would not be as a pro. I was not interested in the monastic lifestyle. I worked some support staff stuff but eventually went into the real world.

A few good friends went on to much bigger things in the sport as riders and support staff. As I live in a warm place they would often come over the winter stay at my place and train and I would go to team events and races. Yes, they rode under Johann. He treated them horribly and did his best to ruin their careers over petty disagreements. When I see people, who have no experience on the inside of the sport, repeating some myth that has no basis in fact it turns my stomach. 

The off the bike side of cycling has always had the potential to be rough. Beyond the dope the harsh realities of professional sport can be amplified in such difficult environment. People like Johann have injected a toxic mix of dope, media spin, and aggressive political maneuvering into the sport that has devalued it greatly. The sooner there are less like him involved in the sport the better. 

As you would expect from my user name I work for Deutsche Telekom and threw that have come to meet many of the riders and the team. The Godefroot years there were equally as toxic an environment. 

There is a way forward. JV and Bob Stapleton are the real deal. There is potential for change in the culture of the professional sport, the French have shown this is possible. Sure it will never be a warm happy place, it is bike racing not choir practice.


----------



## EFaber (Mar 30, 2005)

Well said bigpinkt. Amen to that.

Btw. me & JV last Friday in NYC. Hope this jpeg link opens....

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/Me%20&%20JV.jpg


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

philippe, I've never met you, but I've enjoyed your posts for years, and I trust that you know what you are talking about. A lot of the posts I make in this forum are not about guilt and innocence, and who is a doper and who isn't. My posts are usually about separating facts from rumor and conjecture, and the legitimacy and fairness of the process. I believe, quite strongly, that the process of rooting out cheaters should be held to the highest standards, and if a guilty man goes free because those standards can't be met, then that is the price we pay for having a credible system. As a result, we can know with almost complete certainty that when someone is caught, they are definitely guilty. I know it's unpopular to call into question the anti doping system, but I don't care. I am no doping apologist. I just don't think that the way to catch cheaters is to become one.

In regards to the 1999 EPO positives, I don't believe that they are legitimate. It was an unverifiable research experiment. No attempt was made to meet doping control standards. No attempt was made to legitimize the experiment so that it could stand up to scrutiny. The results are interesting, but they are useless. I don't see how any reasonable person could view it any other way. So when bigpinkt tells people that Lance escaped sanctions on a technicality, that's a lie, and I have to call BS. He knows that it wasn't a valid test, and that sanctions were never a possibility.

I also resent that any time I counter an argument, I get tagged with believing the French conspiracy thing, and with being a Lance stooge. It's as if there are only two kinds of people in this world: those who agree with bigpinkt, and those who are wacky Lance stooges. I call BS on that, too. I am not a Lance stooge. I don't buy into conspiracies, and I don't believe I have ever mentioned conspiracies in any post. That is a fiction created by bigpinkt.

Because bigpinkt seems like an insider and knows a lot about the workings of the sport, a lot of people read his posts and believe they are reading facts. But he makes no attempt to separate facts from conjecture, and that is where I usually jump in to keep him honest. Note that you said "I believe that Lance Armstrong doped to win." He would say "Lance Armstrong doped to win." Yours is stated as an opinion. His is stated as fact.

Now, what do I believe? Quite honestly, I don't know. Did Lance dope? I don't believe that there are enough facts to come to an honest conclusion. There is circumstantial evidence for sure, but it can be rebutted quite easily, and most of it wouldn't stand up in an actual hearing. I <i>believe</i> that given what we know about his competitors, it's hard to believe that he didn't dope, but I can't and won't say for sure that he did. The truth is, I don't really care. Lance is old news. Like most people, I'm tired of hearing about Lance. I'm far more interested in more current screwed up cases, such as Mayo.

Anyway, thanks philippe. I hope to meet you someday.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

mohair_chair said:


> In regards to the 1999 EPO positives, I don't believe that they are legitimate. It was an unverifiable research experiment. No attempt was made to meet doping control standards. No attempt was made to legitimize the experiment so that it could stand up to scrutiny. The results are interesting, but they are useless. I don't see how any reasonable person could view it any other way.


I think I'm a reasonable person  but I think that there's a difference between saying those results are useless for securing a doping conviction, and saying that they are useless because the results are actually wrong. The results were made public in an underhand way and we shouldn't even be _able _to talk about them. And I agree: because of their experimental nature with no opportunity for a B test it is obvious that they could never stand up in a court. BUT, I think any reasonable person can look at them and draw their own conclusions, and I don't think they would be making a crazy leap of faith - the science wasn't _that _tenuous - the numbers are more than likely real.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Oh, and I agree - Lance should be old news by now.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Thanks for the reply, if I am ever in Cali, I will be sure to look you up for a ride (not C0de!), Cheers,


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> philippe, I've never met you,. . . Anyway, thanks philippe. I hope to meet you someday.


Excellent post start to finish.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Jokull said:


> I think I'm a reasonable person  but I think that there's a difference between saying those results are useless for securing a doping conviction, and saying that they are useless because the results are actually wrong. The results were made public in an underhand way and we shouldn't even be _able _to talk about them. And I agree: because of their experimental nature with no opportunity for a B test it is obvious that they could never stand up in a court. BUT, I think any reasonable person can look at them and draw their own conclusions, and I don't think they would be making a crazy leap of faith - the science wasn't _that _tenuous - the numbers are more than likely real.


Certainly from a PR standpoint, they don't look good. But those tests were never intended to be used in the way they are now used. The results were not supposed to be made public, so they didn't have to be careful with how they did things, or keep detailed records, or even preserve the evidence for later examination. For all I know, the tests are 100% accurate, but we'll never know, and we'll never be sure. I have no argument with anyone who says they believe the tests were right, but to state that the results are now factual is a lie.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Mohair,
I usually think you're 100% dead on with most of your statements, but I gotta disagree with you on the lance stuff. The circumstantial stuff is enough imho to demonstrate he was a doper, I'm no lawyer, but I think it'd hold up pretty well in court.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

TheDon said:


> Mohair,
> I usually think you're 100% dead on with most of your statements, but I gotta disagree with you on the lance stuff. The circumstantial stuff is enough imho to demonstrate he was a doper, I'm no lawyer, but I think it'd hold up pretty well in court.


Probably not, but I think you have to be delusional to actually believe Armstrong didn't dope.


----------

