# Bruyneel Suspended for Jerseygate scandal



## roadie92 (Jan 21, 2008)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-suspended-for-two-months-over-wrong-jerseys-at-tour-de-france?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

I have one word for this....ridiculous


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Well, they knew the rule... When you do a marketing stunt like this, you have to calculate the fines beforehand, you know you'll pay a fine. Like Cipo when he showed up in his 'special' kits, he was ready to pay... If you want to wear a special kit without a fine, you have to get it pre-approved by the mafi... huh by the UCI.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

roadie92 said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-suspended-for-two-months-over-wrong-jerseys-at-tour-de-france?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0
> 
> I have one word for this....ridiculous


Why is it ridiculous? Radioshack knew the rules, broke them and then JB twittered this “Ok people! Now it’s official! To be a race commissar you don’t need brains but only know the rules! Their motto: ‘c’est le reglement!'” 

What did they expect? It's all very well breaking the rule but when you take the pi$$ about it as well...............


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

All Johan had to do is clear it with the UCI before the stage, and it's not an issue. How is doling out punishment for breaking the rules ridiculous?

If an NFL or NBA team showed up for a game wearing uniforms that the league office had never seen before, do you think the team would be fined or punished in some manner?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

spade2you said:


> How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?


Difference is Cipo did it with style and his wardrobe transgressions were along the lines of All yellow when he was in the Maillot Jaune, something that is de rigueur for a jersey holder today.

Also according to the UCI, Radioshack could have worn the jerseys had they gone about it properly. Instead they just went ahead, delayed the start and to cap it all turned up on the posium later in the same jerseys. To cap it all Bruyneel tweeted a petulant response too.

He should be happy they don't have the backbone to ban him in January and July.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?


Cipo never used twitter to mock race officials


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

godot said:


> If an NFL team showed up for a game wearing uniforms that the league office had never seen before, do you think the team would be fined or punished in some manner?


Instead they have those approved/endorsed/enforced horrible pink shoes, gloves, towels, and hats.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

godot said:


> Cipo never used twitter to mock race officials


He would have been too busy looking in the mirror.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> He would have been too busy looking in the mirror.


This point can't be argued.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

he deserved the fine and was fined simple as that, over, done whats next.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> Difference is Cipo did it with style and his wardrobe transgressions were along the lines of All yellow when he was in the Maillot Jaune, something that is de rigueur for a jersey holder today.
> 
> Also according to the UCI, Radioshack could have worn the jerseys had they gone about it properly. Instead they just went ahead, delayed the start and to cap it all turned up on the posium later in the same jerseys. To cap it all Bruyneel tweeted a petulant response too.
> 
> He should be happy they don't have the backbone to ban him in January and July.



Actually Cipo did far more than just go all yellow/pink/green etc he and his entire team wore special uniforms celebrating Ceasers Birthday as well as numous other publicty stunts (crazy skin suits for prologs, american flag shorts).

As far as why those were sort of ok (he was always fined but had it written into his contract that the team had to pay the fines), a RadioShack was not, who knows.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Difference is Cipo did it with style and his wardrobe transgressions were along the lines of All yellow when he was in the Maillot Jaune, something that is de rigueur for a jersey holder today.


The difference is, you don't like them, therefore it's not OK. That's what most of this thread is about. I'm not pro RS, seems like bashing them is much like bashing Nickleback.

FWIW, all this proves is that the UCI and JB are both stubborn and look like tools trying to "prove" something.


----------



## viciouscycle (Aug 22, 2009)

Plus, the UCI needs no help in looking bad.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

viciouscycle said:


> Plus, the UCI needs no help in looking bad.


Amen

The UCI knew about the kits in advance. Getting things done with them isn't exactly a speedy process.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

orangeclymer said:


> over, done whats next.



what he said


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

1. so what? what exactly does "suspended" mean to Bruyneel... he can't ride in a team car? There are, what 3 other DS's to handle that.

2. the dates... why Feb/March?


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

there is a difference between one guy wearing an unapproved kit and an entire team showing up that way. early that season (or the previous) quick step showed up to paris-roubaix in a throwback kit and were forced to change.

teoteoteo is in the know, so it sounds like they did what there were supposed to, but the uci dragged their feet.


----------



## mtrider05 (Aug 8, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> 1. so what? what exactly does "suspended" mean to Bruyneel... he can't ride in a team car? There are, what 3 other DS's to handle that.
> 
> 2. the dates... why Feb/March?


After Tour Down Under before ToC and TdF(to name just a few), they couldn't extend a punishment that would actually affect anything!


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

spade2you said:


> How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?



Cipo didn't play the victim card like JB and LA.

He manned up, paid the $$, and kept on doing what he wanted regardless of the dumb UCI.

Big difference.


----------



## vandalbob (Dec 13, 2001)

*Gotta Agree*

I have one word for this....ridiculous[/QUOTE]

Ridiculous indeed.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

spade2you said:


> The difference is, you don't like them, therefore it's not OK. That's what most of this thread is about. I'm not pro RS, seems like bashing them is much like bashing Nickleback.
> 
> FWIW, all this proves is that the UCI and JB are both stubborn and look like tools trying to "prove" something.


Correct, I don't like Radioshack's actions. I wasn't a fan of Cipollini particularly either though.

Cipo may have broken the rules in the same way, but he never did it in the way RS did on what is supposed to be virtually a victory procession for the Maillot Jaune. I also wonder to what degree the organisers were "in" on Cipo's antics too.

RS's actions were akin to Liz Hurley turning up at a society wedding, she was always the one in the papers next day not the bride!


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

spade2you said:


> How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?


Because Cippo was cool.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

you don't need to be too bright to know what comes to you when you offend the authorities that rule you. isn't it ?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Andrea138 said:


> Because Cippo was cool.


Rly?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Yes, srsly.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Marc said:


> Rly?


2 discs, what a dork!. 
considering the stir it made back then, yes. different times different effects


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The rules have changed since Chipo's day.....largely because of Chipo's antics. Teams are allowed to change their kit once a year with prior notice and approval of the UCI. Radioshack knows this but decided the rules do not apply to them. 

Silly response by the UCI. They suspend him for February-March.....so Johann can still be driving the car at Armstrong's last in International payday....err, race in January. Johann has not been at Het-Volk for years so the other months mean nothing to him.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The rules have changed since Chipo's day.....largely because of Chipo's antics. Teams are allowed to change their kit once a year with prior notice and approval of the UCI. Radioshack knows this but decided the rules do not apply to them.
> 
> Silly response by the UCI. They suspend him for February-March.....so Johann can still be driving the car at Armstrong's last in International payday....err, race in January. Johann has not been at Het-Volk for years so the other months mean nothing to him.


Armstrong and company really rub you the wrong way, don't they? I think you post more about Armstrong et al than most fanboys do.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

ghost6 said:


> Armstrong and company really rub you the wrong way, don't they? I think you post more about Armstrong et al than most fanboys do.


But he makes a valid point in that the "ban" is pointless. Bruyneel can be at the TDU and take a late skiing holiday in Feb and Mar before coming back for the Classics and rest of the season. Funny that the other person sanctioned for fighting has the same length of ban but starting friom 1 January isn't it. A rider missing the first two months of the season is going to be far more adversely affected than a DS.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

spade2you said:


> How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?


Isn't Cipo and the Saeco the reason for the rule being implemented?


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> But he makes a valid point in that the "ban" is pointless. Bruyneel can be at the TDU and take a late skiing holiday in Feb and Mar before coming back for the Classics and rest of the season. Funny that the other person sanctioned for fighting has the same length of ban but starting friom 1 January isn't it. A rider missing the first two months of the season is going to be far more adversely affected than a DS.



Sure, it's a valid point, but another point nonetheless. My point is that Dr. F makes it a perpetual point to point out his pointed contempt for Armstrong and the gang. Point taken already.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Sure, it's a valid point, but another point nonetheless. My point is that Dr. F makes it a perpetual point to point out his pointed contempt for Armstrong and the gang. Point taken already.


Post, not poster. 

It is not my fault that Armstrong and Co ignored the rules.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> But he makes a valid point in that the "ban" is pointless. Bruyneel can be at the TDU and take a late skiing holiday in Feb and Mar before coming back for the Classics and rest of the season. Funny that the other person sanctioned for fighting has the same length of ban but starting friom 1 January isn't it. A rider missing the first two months of the season is going to be far more adversely affected than a DS.


Yes, the timing is strange. Why would they not both start January 1st? Johann is seldom in the car anymore when Armstrong is not riding. Dirk is the DS for the classics. 

So Johann is suspended for a bunch of cold Belgium races that he was never going to attend anyways but is allowed to go to the races that matter to him.

As for the Jerseys, I dig them. I thought they had a great message and looked good. The approval process is simple, but they get more publicity if they pretend to be rebels.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Post, not poster.
> 
> It is not my fault that Armstrong and Co ignored the rules.


You couldn't resist!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> You couldn't resist!


Do you disagree with what I have posted our are you just trying to bait someone you disagree with into a confrontation?


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you disagree with what I have posted our are you just trying to bait someone you disagree with into a confrontation?


I agree with your point. You're so good at criticizing LA and the gang that I think you should use your energy in a court room rather than here.


----------



## LauraM (Oct 27, 2010)

I am sure Bruyneel, Armstrong and the rest of RS knew exactly what they were doing from the beginning and probably love the fact that we're all still talking about it.

They've been around a long time and caused enough trouble in the past. Part of the reason why I love them!


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

LauraM said:


> They've been around a long time and caused enough trouble in the past. Part of the reason why I love them!


'cept for the first part about been around for a long time, I almost had a Michael Ball flashback.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> But he makes a valid point in that the "ban" is pointless. Bruyneel can be at the TDU and take a late skiing holiday in Feb and Mar before coming back for the Classics and rest of the season. Funny that the other person sanctioned for fighting has the same length of ban but starting friom 1 January isn't it. A rider missing the first two months of the season is going to be far more adversely affected than a DS.


and the rider started a pathetic excuse for a fight after a stage versus riding upset twitter messages. Seems fair to me.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

den bakker said:


> and the rider started a pathetic excuse for a fight after a stage versus riding upset twitter messages. Seems fair to me.


I'm not defending the actions of Barredo at all. But to ban Bruyneel for two months at the same time but delay the application to a date when it has no meaning whatsoever is ridiculous. It's the same as banning a rider in November & December when he won't be racing. Ever seen Bruyneel working at races in February & March? I can't remember seeing him at all. A ban during the season for a rider has an effect whenever it is as nothing can replace racing miles. A ban for a DS is far less effective as he can still work with a mobile phone.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> How come RS is horrible and Cippo was cool?


because the company cipo owned didnt profit from his 'incidents'


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

alexb618 said:


> because the company cipo owned didnt profit from his 'incidents'


Damn cancer people. How dare they profit!!!!


----------



## mtrider05 (Aug 8, 2009)

alexb618 said:


> because the company cipo owned didnt profit from his 'incidents'


Uhhhh?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> I'm not defending the actions of Barredo at all.


Too bad. Given that he decided to hit some dude with a very light wheel in the head while they were wearing a helmet, I think he needs all the help he could get. 

PS, the fact that they were slightly uncoordinated from their cycling shoes made it one of the best sissy fights of all time, although Cadel's sissy slaps during the Giro were about on par with this........


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

will that give him enough time to testify?
________
ZOLOFT SIDE EFFECTS


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

LauraM said:


> I am sure Bruyneel, Armstrong and the rest of RS knew exactly what they were doing from the beginning and probably love the fact that we're all still talking about it.
> 
> They've been around a long time and caused enough trouble in the past...


+1 Yup-yup!

The fines and suspensions are indeed meaningless...the PR is priceless!


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Fining them ends up being some of the cheapest PR they can buy. Sure.. fining each team member sucks but the team will likely "cover" those fines as well. 

I honestly don't think this was that big of a deal anyways.


----------



## padawan716 (Mar 22, 2008)

A fine I could understand. A suspension? Please. The UCI does an excellent job of making themselves look like jerks. They oughtta just give it up and force historic riders to race on historic bikes with historic jerseys sponsored by historic teams.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

the fine was for the jerseys

the suspension was for the comments 'post incident'

you think the UCI are bad with fines? go and have a chat to NBA commissioner david j stern about the fines he is handing out this year.


----------



## wibly wobly (Apr 23, 2009)

alexb618 said:


> you think the UCI are bad with fines? go and have a chat to NBA commissioner david j stern about the fines he is handing out this year.


seriously, look at tennis when people mouth off?

JB got slapped for blowing his mouth off on Twitter. They probably would have just had the fine if he didn't do that. They're saving face at best. Back door fist fighting at worst. The fist fighting would be more fun to look at.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

So a team director can't voice his feelings about the governing body of the sport? Why.. because they're omnipotent and incapable of being wrong? Thats pathetic.. they deserve slander and ridicule. The rest of us think they're idiots at times so IMO Johan has every right to say whatever the hell he wants. Freedom of speech anyone?


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> So a team director can't voice his feelings about the governing body of the sport? Why.. because they're omnipotent and incapable of being wrong? Thats pathetic.. they deserve slander and ridicule. The rest of us think they're idiots at times so IMO Johan has every right to say whatever the hell he wants. Freedom of speech anyone?


JB has freedom of speech. But reality is that when one is publicly criticizes a body or person that has power over you, you are taking your chances. 

Case in point, I am a homebuilder. Do you think that I would receive project approvals by publicly embarrassing council members? 

Welcome to the real world, sometimes it is more prudent to bite ones tongue.

PS- Both the UCI and JB are idiots in my book. The publicity stunt and the reaction prove that point.


----------



## wibly wobly (Apr 23, 2009)

I'm going to be eating popcorn over the next season watching to see if more shenanigans happen between them.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Could his suspension have anything to do with the fact that he made womens underwear with the word cobbles on the front? Fashion faux pas anyone?


----------

