# Danish team fighting to maintain WorldTour licence



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Wow; looks like reality is setting in :eek6: !



> *Saxo Bank riders under pressure to bring in results *
> 
> Bjarne Riis and Team Saxo Bank are up before the UCI licencing commission Monday, leaving the team's riders a bit nervous about the future. The lack of team captain Alberto Contador puts the pressure on the other riders to help maintain the team's WorldTour status.
> 
> ...


----------



## dougydee (Feb 15, 2005)

They didn't seem to have a back up plan for grand tour riders. I bet they wish they kept Richie Porte now.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

the chickens finally come home to roost for "Mr. 60"


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

It would be wonderful if they pulled their world tour license.


----------



## dougydee (Feb 15, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> It would be wonderful if they pulled their world tour license.


If they pulled the team, would they replace them with the team that just missed out? or would there just be an extra wild card at each event?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

dougydee said:


> If they pulled the team, would they replace them with the team that just missed out? or would there just be an extra wild card at each event?



Oh, good question.


It'll be interesting if it gets that far  !


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

dougydee said:


> If they pulled the team, would they replace them with the team that just missed out? or would there just be an extra wild card at each event?


I'd like to see the extra wildcard. Wildcard teams add all the spice to races.

Honestly, I have no idea though.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> I'd like to see the extra wildcard. Wildcard teams add all the spice to races.
> 
> Honestly, I have no idea though.


This. It is always fun to watch as the wildcard teams milk the invite for all it's worth.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

You people really think it's a good thing for Saxo Bank, a team that has existed as CSC, to lose out? This would likely lead to the loss of the sponsor. Losing sponsors is a good idea to you guys?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

PaxRomana said:


> You people really think it's a good thing for Saxo Bank, a team that has existed as CSC, to lose out? This would likely lead to the loss of the sponsor. Losing sponsors is a good idea to you guys?


Signing dopers is bad for the sport. Consequences can be delayed, but not avoided.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Creakyknees said:


> Signing dopers is bad for the sport. Consequences can be delayed, but not avoided.


How's that way-back machine working out for you?


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

PaxRomana said:


> You people really think it's a good thing for Saxo Bank, a team that has existed as CSC, to lose out? This would likely lead to the loss of the sponsor. Losing sponsors is a good idea to you guys?


So, you're in favor of teams buying their way into races?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

asgelle said:


> How's that way-back machine working out for you?


Not sure what you mean... Riis signed Contador, knowing he's a doper. Sure, he got a couple good years out of him, before the other shoe dropped, washing away everything. But, sponsor checks don't get un-cashed, so hey at least he had a couple years of paychecks.

The victims here are the other riders, and the sponsors, who bought the Riis / Contador BS.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Creakyknees said:


> Not sure what you mean... Riis signed Contador, knowing he's a doper.


How do you know this? (Especially in light of the CAS finding that the clenbuterol positive was a result of inadvertant ingestion.)


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

asgelle said:


> How do you know this? (Especially in light of the CAS finding that the clenbuterol positive was a result of inadvertant ingestion.)



He tested positive to an illegal substance; he was suspended; Spanish Inquisition acquitted him; his case was appealed; he lost the appeal; he's currently serving the suspension.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cda 455 said:


> He tested positive to an illegal substance; he was suspended; Spanish Inquisition acquitted him; his case was appealed; he lost the appeal; he's currently serving the suspension.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


An accurate timeline? (or reading comprehension. We're talking about the time at which Riis signed Contador, not today.)


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I am not speaking of legal cases. I'm speaking of the obvious nature of professional cycling, of Riis' background (including Operacion Puerto) and him knowing Contador's background. 

Contador is (or has been) a doper; anyone who seriously follows the sport knows this. Riis is a former doper, he has acknowledged this.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Creakyknees said:


> Contador is (or has been) a doper; anyone who seriously follows the sport knows this.


In other words Riis was supposed to know Contador would be found guilty of doping without any shred of evidence extant at the time. Hence the way-back machine.

[edit] The above is unfair to Riis. There is no evidence to this day that Contador ever engaged in deliberate doping. So why is it that Riis shouldn't have signed Contador?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> So why is it that Riis shouldn't have signed Contador?


Because he beat Lance and that makes him the devil?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

asgelle said:


> In other words Riis was supposed to know Contador would be found guilty of doping without any shred of evidence extant at the time. Hence the way-back machine.


Look, now that we're in the doping forum, and it's my fault, I'll just lay off this thread. I'm not going to add any new info; nor do I expect to change your mind or anyone else's.

But, it's silly to think that Riis wasn't aware of Puerto, of Spain's attitude toward doping in cycling, of the history of the sport. Maybe Riis believed Contador was clean, maybe not. 

All that was fine, with a couple of good years... until it wasn't. 

But it's naive, IMO, to think that Riis didn't know there was a risk. I'll stop short of accusing Riis of being complicit, but that wouldn't surprise me either. 




asgelle said:


> There is no evidence to this day that Contador ever engaged in deliberate doping.


Um... you mean, besides the well-publicized case that is now resolved against Contador?
And, Puerto, which never brought charges but clearly implicated Contador?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Creakyknees said:


> Um... you mean, besides the well-publicized case that is now resolved against Contador?
> And, Puerto, which never brought charges but clearly implicated Contador?


No I mean the well-publicized case that is now resolved with a finding of no deliberate doping by Contador.

And, Puerto which never brought charges but from which issued a statement explicitly excluding Contador from any suspicion.

Facts do have the nasty habit of getting in the way of such nice conclusions.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

asgelle said:


> In other words Riis was supposed to know Contador would be found guilty of doping without any shred of evidence extant at the time. Hence the way-back machine.
> 
> [edit] The above is unfair to Riis. There is no evidence to this day that Contador ever engaged in deliberate doping. So why is it that Riis shouldn't have signed Contador?



Deliberate or accidental; the bottom line is still the same. The cyclist is ultimately responsible for what goes in said cyclists' body. Period.


There was an appeal hanging over Clentadors' head so Riis knew there was a chance that there would be a suspension. Riis took a gamble and lost.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cda 455 said:


> Deliberate or accidental; the bottom line is still the same. The cyclist is ultimately responsible for what goes in said cyclists' body. Period.


How is a director supposed to know when a rider will accidentally ingest something? 


cda 455 said:


> There was an appeal hanging over Clentadors' head so Riis knew there was a chance that there would be a suspension. Riis took a gamble and lost.


Where do you get this? Do you just make things up?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

asgelle said:


> How is a director supposed to know when a rider will accidentally ingest something?
> 
> Where do you get this? Do you just make things up?



That's why the rule exists: It is ultimately the responsibility of the cyclist what goes in their mouth.


You're new to pro cycling  ??? 

This forum has several threads on the topic. 


And why the insult?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

PaxRomana said:


> You people really think it's a good thing for Saxo Bank, a team that has existed as CSC, to lose out? This would likely lead to the loss of the sponsor. Losing sponsors is a good idea to you guys?


Yes, I think it's good. It proves that the rules are the rules. You don't have the points to be world tour, you're not world tour. You lose the points, you lose the license.

I don't have any pity for a team like Saxo that put 68% of its eggs in one rider's basket. That's their own poor planning.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Yes, I think it's good. It proves that the rules are the rules. You don't have the points to be world tour, you're not world tour. You lose the points, you lose the license.
> 
> I don't have any pity for a_* team like Saxo that put 68% of its eggs in one rider's basket. *_ That's their own poor planning.



Excellent, excellent point :thumbsup: !


Especially with the possibility of said eggs being banned via the outcome of the appeal _*at the time of signing the contract.*_ Riis knew there was a possibility however great or small.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

cda 455 said:


> Excellent, excellent point :thumbsup: !
> 
> 
> Especially with the possibility of said eggs being banned via the outcome of the appeal _*at the time of signing the contract.*_ Riis knew there was a possibility however great or small.


To be honest, I don't believe Riis or Contador knew about the positive test at the time of contract signing (supposedly they agreed upon the contract just after the 2010 tour) so he basically inherited the problem. However...Contador was cleared to race by RFEC in February of 2011, and Riis knew that an appeal was forthcoming. He gambled heavily on the idea that Contador would get off and keep the 2/3rds of the team's points instead of signing a bunch of other riders who actually HAD WorldTour points.

That was his gamble, and he lost. Too bad, but the license should be lost as well. If this had been done properly (i.e. he had been banned from August 2010 as is now done) Riis may not have had the points for a WT license anyway.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cda 455 said:


> Especially with the possibility of said eggs being banned via the outcome of the appeal _*at the time of signing the contract.*_ Riis knew there was a possibility however great or small.


Do you think putting it in bold makes it any less false. Here I'll help you out.
Cyclingnews' Complete Coverage Of Alberto Contador's Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com

And if you want contemporaneous accounts:
Contador To Ride With Riis In 2011 | Cyclingnews.com
Alberto Contador Tests Positive For Clenbuterol | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> To be honest, I don't believe Riis or Contador knew about the positive test at the time of contract signing (supposedly they agreed upon the contract just after the 2010 tour) so he basically inherited the problem. However...Contador was cleared to race by RFEC in February of 2011, and Riis knew that an appeal was forthcoming. He gambled heavily on the idea that Contador would get off and keep the 2/3rds of the team's points instead of signing a bunch of other riders who actually HAD WorldTour points.
> 
> That was his gamble, and he lost. Too bad, but the license should be lost as well. If this had been done properly (i.e. he had been banned from August 2010 as is now done) Riis may not have had the points for a WT license anyway.



In Sept. '10 Contador announced he tested positive after joining saxo Bank.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Do you think putting it in bold makes it any less false. Here I'll help you out.
> Cyclingnews' Complete Coverage Of Alberto Contador's Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> And if you want contemporaneous accounts:
> ...


Thanks for the info and correction  .



> *July 20:* Allegedly eats contaminated meat bought by Spanish cycling organiser, Jose Luis Lopez Cerron, a friend of the Astana team chef who had complained of poor quality meat at the hotel where the team was staying.
> 
> *July 21:* Allegedly eats contaminated meat again. Is drug tested on the second rest day, in Pau. His samples showed the presence of Clenbuterol at 50 picograms per millilitre.
> 
> ...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

cda 455 said:


> In Sept. '10 Contador announced he tested positive after joining saxo Bank.


Correct. And of the timeline below, the ink was dry on the contract before the positive test was released. Riis inherited the problem, but that's still no excuse for banking (hah hah, pun intended) an acquittal to retain your world tour license.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Correct. And of the timeline below, the ink was dry on the contract before the positive test was released. Riis inherited the problem, but that's still no excuse for banking (hah hah, pun intended) an acquittal to retain your world tour license.



Yeah, the timeline was close that I assumed and got it wrong :blush2: .


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cda 455 said:


> Yeah, the timeline was close that I assumed and got it wrong :blush2: .


Emily Litella?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Emily Litella?



:lol: :lol:

Oooooh! 


Never mind!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The sport is in need of real sponsors like Saxo. Currently it is dependent on the largess of various billionaire fans and Oil Rich governments. Real sponsors like Saxo are few.

It is true that Riis signed Contador before the positive. He was also given guidance by the UCI and the REFC that it was a clear cut case of food contamination. 

Riis certainly is a toxic element in the sport but it would be absurd that he gets tossed out while Anderson, Brunyeel, Martinelli, and Lefevre remain.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Great.

My first thread that gets moved to the Doping Forum  :lol: !


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Great.
> 
> My first thread that gets moved to the Doping Forum  :lol: !


rules are the rules ... did you not think you would get responses that would warrant a move???


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

Seems obvious to me that Contador is a made man in the sport, so when it comes time to start racing again in a few months, he'll have his Saxo team ready to go. Also, folks forget that the UCI's Plan A was for Contador and Riis to just keep quiet about the whole deal.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Correct. And of the timeline below, the ink was dry on the contract before the positive test was released. Riis inherited the problem, but that's still no excuse for banking (hah hah, pun intended) an acquittal to retain your world tour license.


What exactly would you suggest Riis have done? He has to pay Contador. The guy's under contract.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The sport is in need of real sponsors like Saxo. Currently it is dependent on the largess of various billionaire fans and Oil Rich governments. Real sponsors like Saxo are few.
> 
> It is true that Riis signed Contador before the positive. He was also given guidance by the UCI and the REFC that it was a clear cut case of food contamination.
> 
> Riis certainly is a toxic element in the sport but it would be absurd that he gets tossed out while Anderson, Brunyeel, Martinelli, and Lefevre remain.


Exactly. Amazing that people fail to see this.

I really am curious to hear how people think Riis should have handled this when he was presented with a) a limited budget and b) a highly-paid rider whom he had already signed and who tested positive but was acquitted by RFEC.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

PaxRomana said:


> What exactly would you suggest Riis have done? He has to pay Contador. The guy's under contract.


If "the guy had been under contract" for a team with a zero tolerance policy, he'd have been fired. Just because Riis doesn't mind (and has to have his destroyer on the front of each mountain stage) paying him while he's under suspicion doesn't mean I feel sorry for him.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> If "the guy had been under contract" for a team with a zero tolerance policy, he'd have been fired. Just because Riis doesn't mind (and has to have his destroyer on the front of each mountain stage) paying him while he's under suspicion doesn't mean I feel sorry for him.


So in your mind, being found innocent means you're still guilty.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> So in your mind, being found innocent means you're still guilty.


You and I both know RFECs decision was asinine. Guilty one week, reversed the next after some higher up politician calls for it? And aren't you one of the ones who claims they're all guilty of something anyway?

He was being appealed by the WADA and UCI. At that point, he should have been pulled from racing and the damn appeal shouldn't have taken 8 months to be heard. But that's another thread.

The bottom line here is his points were earned during a suspension. They should be revoked. If they don't meet WT criteria, they should be downgraded. Simple application of the rules.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> You and I both know RFECs decision was asinine. Guilty one week, reversed the next after some higher up politician calls for it? And aren't you one of the ones who claims they're all guilty of something anyway?
> 
> *He was being appealed by the WADA and UCI. At that point, he should have been pulled from racing* and the damn appeal shouldn't have taken 8 months to be heard. But that's another thread.
> 
> The bottom line here is his points were earned during a suspension. They should be revoked. If they don't meet WT criteria, they should be downgraded. Simple application of the rules.


While it sounds like a simple solution, they can't do it. Riis would have faced a huge legal battle if he dropped a rider who had been found innocent by his Fed. AC would have a good case, especially as the UCI had been saying since the start that it looked like food contamination. Granted the UCI and RFEC's actions are absurd but they still limit Riis' possibilities. 

It looks like Contador will not be returning to Saxo after his suspension. He is tired of Riis the control freak and looks to move to Movistar
Ekstra Bladet - Avis: Contador vil væk fra Riis


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The sport is in need of real sponsors like Saxo. Currently it is dependent on the largess of various billionaire fans and Oil Rich governments. Real sponsors like Saxo are few.
> 
> It is true that Riis signed Contador before the positive. He was also given guidance by the UCI and the REFC that it was a clear cut case of food contamination.
> 
> Riis certainly is a toxic element in the sport but it would be absurd that he gets tossed out while Anderson, Brunyeel, Martinelli, and Lefevre remain.


Maybe two days late, but for that, good doctor, you got one extra rep point from me.
Furthermore Riis' team was gutted in 2010 when the Schlecks and Cancellara (along with the help) jumped ship. Team Schleck was then handed over to Bruyneel, no less toxic than Riis. 

Riis did the only thing possible and signed the best free agent available on the market. It's less severe than what Bruyneel did right after Armstrong's retirement. Remember the signing of Ivan Basso (another former Riis rider), who's evidence was more stacked against him in 2006 than Contador at the end of 2010?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> And aren't you one of the ones who claims they're all guilty of something anyway?


O.K. We get it. Facts are not your strong suit.



robdamanii said:


> He was being appealed by the WADA and UCI. At that point, he should have been pulled from racing ...


In other words, innocent means guilty. The fact that anyone with standing disagrees with a no-suspension decision means a suspension should be imposed.



robdamanii said:


> The bottom line here is his points were earned during a suspension.


George Orwell laughs. The only way to have known he was on suspension when he earned those points was to be able to time travel to the future. The only way to adjust behavior based on the suspension is through use of the way back machine.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Because he beat Lance and that makes him the devil?


Man I love this thread. You just earned a rep.
But when Contador was matching pedalstroke for pedalstroke the chicken in '07 and riding for Bruyneel, he was clean.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> O.K. We get it. Facts are not your strong suit.
> 
> 
> In other words, innocent means guilty. The fact that anyone with standing disagrees with a no-suspension decision means a suspension should be imposed.
> ...


Do you really think his results should stand? His positive test occurred in 2010. All results after that test rightfully should be null and void. Or are you suggesting he should keep all of them, including his tour title?

And stop with the "innocent means guilty" BS. He was guilty from February 11, until political intervention freed the golden boy. If not for political intervention, he wouldn't have been racing in 2011 period. 

There's no reason on earth to feel sorry for him nor Riis.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Do you really think his results should stand? His positive test occurred in 2010. All results after that test rightfully should be null and void. Or are you suggesting he should keep all of them, including his tour title?


I'm suggesting you should familiarize yourself with the WADA code.Surely you can distinguish between a race where the rider has an AAF and one where he was racing with a valid license and passed all controls. Can't you?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Reading this thread makes me glad we have CAS.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> I'm suggesting you should familiarize yourself with the WADA code.Surely you can distinguish between a race where the rider has an AAF and one where he was racing with a valid license and passed all controls. Can't you?


This has nothing to do with WADA and everything to do with Riis and Saxo Bank. He had the option to hold Contador out of competition during appeal. He chose not to.

Apparently you missed the part where CAS issued a retroactive ban. Game over for Riis, which is what he deserves for banking on Contador's points to carry their WT license this year. That's how to ball bounces.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

One of the more disturbing issues with this topic is nobody has any idea how the UCI will rule. They are completely unpredictable and often irrational


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Apparently you missed the part where CAS issued a retroactive ban.


Actually, I noticed, and that's what's at the core of all this. A retroactive ban is an oxymoron.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Actually, I noticed, and that's what's at the core of all this. A retroactive ban is an oxymoron.


As stupid as it is that he shouldn't have been racing anyway, that's the way it is.

Now should he keep his points or not?


----------

