# Disco to Disband



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news2

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-sp-cycle10aug10,1,3407791.story?coll=la-headlines-business



> According to the Los Angeles Times, Johan Bruyneel will announce today that he has been unable to find a new sponsor to replace the departing Discovery Channel and that the team will be disbanded at the end of the season.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

...might be Wal-Mart....they are selling carbon bikes now, so that would help keep costs low...


----------



## Red Sox Junkie (Sep 15, 2005)

BikinCO said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news2
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-sp-cycle10aug10,1,3407791.story?coll=la-headlines-business


That is crazy. How do you just disband???


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

bonkmiester said:


> ...might be Wal-Mart....they are selling carbon bikes now, so that would help keep costs low...



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news3


:nonod: :17:


----------



## cydswipe (Mar 7, 2002)

*wow.*

I didn't realize that finding a sponsor to cough up $45 million dollars for three years would be so hard. Especially after 8 TdF wins, a Vuelta(Heras) and Giro(Popo) win also.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Money talks & the potential sponsors are saying they don't want to be associated with doping.

Discovery has led the "Head in the sand" approach to doping IMO. 

Like I said in a previous thread, I wouldn't sponsor them as long as JB and his professional doping organization was involved. They are everything that is wrong with the sport.

Len


----------



## cod3man (Jul 16, 2007)

maybe some things have to die for news things to live. ie. slipstream and its code of ethics. I already switched my support to slipstream.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

cod3man said:


> maybe some things have to die for news things to live. ie. slipstream and its code of ethics. I already switched my support to slipstream.


+1...:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:...have you been reading my mind...???


----------



## jahona (Aug 23, 2005)

I agree, it is kind of crazy that they couldn't find SOMETHING out there to pay the bills. The CN report seemed to be hinting that $45 million for 3 years maybe was a bit much - to me it seems like Lance himself could pay that. I'm thinking JB basically shot himself in the foot with the Basso fiasco though. Having AC initially linked to Puerto probably doesn't help either. Would they have landed a sponsor If they had a more progressive anti-doping stance?


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

cydswipe said:


> I didn't realize that finding a sponsor to cough up $45 million dollars for three years would be so hard. Especially after 8 TdF wins, a Vuelta(Heras) and Giro(Popo) win also.


popo never won the giro.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

jahona said:


> I agree, it is kind of crazy that they couldn't find SOMETHING out there to pay the bills. The CN report seemed to be hinting that $45 million for 3 years maybe was a bit much - to me it seems like Lance himself could pay that. I'm thinking JB basically shot himself in the foot with the Basso fiasco though. Having AC initially linked to Puerto probably doesn't help either. Would they have landed a sponsor If they had a more progressive anti-doping stance?


45/3 = $15 mill a year.. seems reasonable


----------



## mquetel (Apr 2, 2006)

cydswipe said:


> I didn't realize that finding a sponsor to cough up $45 million dollars for three years would be so hard. Especially after 8 TdF wins, a Vuelta(Heras) and Giro(Popo) win also.


The Giro win was actually with Savoldelli.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

jahona said:


> Would they have landed a sponsor If they had a more progressive anti-doping stance?


only if they really "walked the Walk." & it appears that JB (based on his public statements) is incapable of seeing the need for a change.

IMO

Len


----------



## Red Sox Junkie (Sep 15, 2005)

I think I'm there with you brother!


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

I haven't actually heard the fat lady sing yet.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Yea........*



bas said:


> 45/3 = $15 mill a year.. seems reasonable


$15 mill a year for 3 weeks of bad publicity in the US....Not a bad deal. Where do I sign up?

Len


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*The warm up..........*



MB1 said:


> I haven't actually heard the fat lady sing yet.


will be the cancellation of versus TDF coverage for next year.

Without a US team......it's almost inevitible.

Len


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*From thepaceline.com*



MB1 said:


> I haven't actually heard the fat lady sing yet.


http://www.thepaceline.com/members/press_item.aspx?cid=3535



> TAILWIND SPORTS TO END CYCLING TEAM SPONSOR SEARCH
> 
> 
> Team to cease operation effective the end of 2007 season
> ...


Interesting remarks from Stapleton and Lance.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Len J said:


> Without a US team......it's almost inevitible.


Slipstream would need some pretty click marketing to sell itself to America, even assuming that they go to the Tour. 

Uzziefly, my condolenses. 

Are Disco/Postal jerseys now retro enough to wear without shame?


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

When one of the most successful teams in the sport, a team that has never had a rider test positive while on the squad (putting aside LA's unconfirmable 1999 tests), abandons the game, seems kinda strange to treat that as a good thing. I guess that's the looking glass world of cycling.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

This is just err... errr.... er.... I'm speechless... :cryin: :cryin: :cryin: :ma2: :cryin: :mad2: :mad5: :cryin:

I wanna get drunk with perrierre water.....


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*The key phrase.........*



harlond said:


> When one of the most successful teams in the sport, a team that has never had a rider test positive while on the squad (putting aside LA's unconfirmable 1999 tests), abandons the game, seems kinda strange to treat that as a good thing. I guess that's the looking glass world of cycling.


is "while on the squad". When just about every rider that leaves seems to need to dope to maintain their smae level of performance, doesn't that say something to you about what was happening on Disco? 

It's a good thing because one more team that didn't want the sport to move away from doping, that liked things just the way they were has been given a wake up call.

Change is hard, and never pain free...........this is a good signal to the rest of cycling.

Len


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Pablo said:


> Slipstream would need some pretty click marketing to sell itself to America, even assuming that they go to the Tour.
> 
> Uzziefly, my condolenses.
> 
> Are Disco/Postal jerseys now retro enough to wear without shame?


I'm just really really sad and shocked and confused at the same time. For real.

This sucks big time. Coupled with nothing nice to watch on tv right now as well. This really blows. 

Where would all the riders go? All into Slipstream? I wish. Form a new team like Astana did last time? 

George in T Mobile would seem weird after seeing him in blue for so many years and now switching to pink. 

This sucks big time.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> is "while on the squad". When just about every rider that leaves seems to need to dope to maintain their smae level of performance, doesn't that say something to you about what was happening on Disco?
> 
> It's a good thing because one more team that didn't want the sport to move away from doping, that liked things just the way they were has been given a wake up call.
> 
> ...


Well... Let's see how the riders now do next season. Not all doped I'm sure. It's just sad nonetheless. Still, you can't say this team doesn't want the sport to move away from doping bluntly without taking in the facts no rider on their squad tested positive, whether or not it seems dubious or whatever. Get my drift? Ok I probably am not phrasing it right coz of the shock of this news and all but yeah.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

It doesn't bode well when a DS with eight Tour wins under his belt can't find a sponsor. Sad indeed.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*How long........*



uzziefly said:


> Well... Let's see how the riders now do next season. Not all doped I'm sure. It's just sad nonetheless. Still, you can't say this team doesn't want the sport to move away from doping bluntly without taking in the facts no rider on their squad tested positive, whether or not it seems dubious or whatever. Get my drift? Ok I probably am not phrasing it right coz of the shock of this news and all but yeah.


are people going to hang onto that "Never tested positive" as proof of anything?

Riss never tested positive
Zabel never tested positive
Miller never tested positive
Rumsas never tested positive
I could go on but you get the drift.

The only way anyone has gotten caught is 1.) They were careless (Vinekerov, Miller) 2.) their Doctor was caught (Puerto). 3.) Their Mule gets caught (Rumsas) or 4.) Someone close to them turns on them. Outside of that, a well disciplined doping program is undetectable. I'm shocked that so few people can accept that.

No positive tests is more an indication of the discipline & sophistication involved in the doping program than it is of innocence.....that is the problem currently in cycling, it's not transparent enough.

Len


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

"No positive tests is more an indication of the discipline & sophistication involved in the doping program than it is of innocence...."

...and the lack of sophistication in the doping controls...which we now see changing...


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

The dopers are ruining professional cycling. What company -- eg, sponsor -- would want to be associated with illegal drugs and cheating? I predict that more pro cycling teams will lose their sponsors as well. When even diehard cycling fans turn off to the Tour de France, why would anybody be interested in the sport? Personally I don't care a thing about pro cycling anymore -- they're either all cheating, or the groups doing the testing are targeting certain teams/riders (eg, Landis). Either way, it's a farce.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> are people going to hang onto that "Never tested positive" as proof of anything?
> 
> Riss never tested positive
> Zabel never tested positive
> ...


I know, but still, what I'm saying is, does that mean all other riders who never tested positive before are dopers too? Say, Evans maybe? And many others.. Are there no other teams without anyone tested posivite ever?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Retro Grouch said:


> It doesn't bode well when a DS with eight Tour wins under his belt can't find a sponsor. Sad indeed.


Indeed. :cryin: 

So where would the riders go? 

Where would Johan and all the staff like Dirk, Eki and all go? Mechanics and soigneurs and all?


----------



## wiles (Apr 17, 2005)

They must have something to hide, or someone at the top is just tired of it all. The core of Tailwind sports, originally, as I understand it, is the same guy that helped reorganize the new successful USA Cycling, Thomas W. Weisel. He was the chief executive of Mongomery Securities. the legendary west coast financial firm. No slouch of a businessman. If Tom wanted Discovery to continue, he could make it happen. We are talking about one of the most successful and connected businessmen in America.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

So what about Slipstream? How do we know that they aren't a "new Disco/USPS" so to speak and they might actually have a very good doping program as people say Disco had too. 

How do we know other teams aren't doing it too?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*My measure is........*



uzziefly said:


> I know, but still, what I'm saying is, does that mean all other riders who never tested positive before are dopers too? Say, Evans maybe? And many others.. Are there no other teams without anyone tested posivite ever?


"More likely than not".

I've heard too many first hand accounts, seen too many who never test positive get caught, listened to too many key people in the sport blow off accusations & watched the Peleton increase it's average speeds too rapidly to believe that the testing is on par with the dopers. IMO, it is still "more likely than not" that a majority of riders are doing something. 

But I still enjoy the racing.

It's about being reality based.

Len


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

*haven't heard of due diligence?*

If you're a potential new sponsor you're going to investigate the team and its management. My guess is that Discovery didn't stand up to this--too many people within cycling pointing the finger (face it, you've got to be completely saturated with the koolaid to believe this team is clean). Discovery and Bruyneel in particular are relics of the old way of doing things. Good riddance-I just hope Bruyneel doesn't resurface somewhere else.


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

What this comes down to is a lack of belief that riders can and will stay clean while they are competing. We as fans and even casual bystanders have heard time and time again about these guys getting busted. The Tour will live on, but it is most likely going to be much smaller in the future. 

If someone comes to the rescue of the sport, and by that I mean, a rider, a team, a sponsor, a nation, someone, then the sport might re-emerge.

I think cycling as a worldwide professional sport is slowly dying. But it is not dead yet.


----------



## innergel (Jun 14, 2002)

There is no f-ing way any company is going to pony up $15 million per year to sponsor something with even the inkling of scandal attached to it. Public companies have giant budget committees and no one has carte blanche to spend $15 million on a pet project. For that money, there has to be big return. Big. Investors would go ballistic. 

If the company is private, most likely they are smaller and can't afford the cash either. Once again, the return would have to be big to even consider it. 

And any individual who has the money and is interested in cycling is going to balk too. Those people didn't make their money by frivilously blowing $15 million/year. No one's hobbies are that expensive. 

So I'm not surprised they couldn't find a sponsor. The number of willing companies is very small and apparently shrinking.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Boonen rode for Postal before right and when he left, was he caught for doping? I don't think so. What about Levi when he left? Nothing as well. So that's not too fair to say that just coz some of them who left are implicated means that you'll get busted once you leave or that all of them dope. 

Will George get busted next year? Will Popo and Gusev and Brajkovic and the rest get busted too? What about Savoldelli when he left at the end of last year? Nothing too right?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> "More likely than not".
> 
> I've heard too many first hand accounts, seen too many who never test positive get caught, listened to too many key people in the sport blow off accusations & watched the Peleton increase it's average speeds too rapidly to believe that the testing is on par with the dopers. IMO, it is still "more likely than not" that a majority of riders are doing something.
> 
> ...


Well, what about the many other riders? Hushovd, Boonen, McEwen, Evans, Kloden, Noval, Popo and a lot more? I mean, surely not everyone dopes. Just like track and field. There are dopers. The top dogs do it in the off season and don't race and when the remains leave and are untraceable, they race and do good timings. But surely not all of them do it. Yelena (pole vault champion) doesn't I'm sure. Wariner and Johnson are probably clean too. Etc.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

This is the first time we see Lance Amstrong -- a co-owner of Tailwind -- quit and throw in the towel. Just like that. :mad2: 

Bjarne Reiss almost lost CSC a couple of years ago but he begged and pleaded and got the backing. Now the USA is without a ProTour team after winning 8 TdFs in 9 friggin years plus a Giro and a Vuelta??? No more blue train?? No more Johan Bruyneel???  Bucket of cold water over the head. 

This really sucks.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

The irony is that road cycling in the USA has never been more popular -- we all see how much people are shelling out hard $ for road bikes, etc. Down where I live on weekend mornings the roads are FLOODED with roadies -- wasn't anywhere like this 3 years ago. And yet the USA just lost its only ProTour team after winning 8 of the last 9 TdFs!

INSANE. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I had a smile when I read the news this morning. I won't dance on their grave by starting some conspiracy theories. (Not in this tread at least )

Anyone want to venture a guess as to which team Trek will sponsor? They almost have to sponsor a ProTour team with the commitment they've made towards technology. I hear Astana is looking for a bike provider ...


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> This is the first time we see Lance Amstrong -- a co-owner of Tailwind -- quit and throw in the towel. Just like that. :mad2:
> 
> Bjarne Reiss almost lost CSC a couple of years ago but he begged and pleaded and got the backing. Now the USA is without a ProTour team after winning 8 TdFs in 9 friggin years plus a Giro and a Vuelta??? No more blue train?? No more Johan Bruyneel???  Bucket of cold water over the head.
> 
> This really sucks.


Sucks big time alright. Vodafone/nike wanted to pull out from Manchester United on their barren spell a few years back (vodafone did) but that's coz of a BARREN spell and even this was insane.

THIS? NUTS... but yeah Riis fought like hell....


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> The irony is that road cycling in the USA has never been more popular -- we all see how much people are shelling out hard $ for road bikes, etc. Down where I live on weekend mornings the roads are FLOODED with roadies -- wasn't anywhere like this 3 years ago. And yet the USA just lost its only ProTour team after winning 8 of the last 9 TdFs!
> 
> INSANE. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


more people ride everywhere and not just the US actually (lots ride here in Singapore as I noticed) but yeah when I went back to the US a while back soooo many people ride now.

Sad we're losing Disco but maybe Slipstream could do it.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

innergel said:


> There is no f-ing way any company is going to pony up $15 million per year to sponsor something with even the inkling of scandal attached to it. Public companies have giant budget committees and no one has carte blanche to spend $15 million on a pet project. For that money, there has to be big return. Big. Investors would go ballistic.
> 
> If the company is private, most likely they are smaller and can't afford the cash either. Once again, the return would have to be big to even consider it.
> 
> ...


Get a billionaire soccer team owner to do so


----------



## mtbykr (Feb 16, 2004)

*well*

Interesting comment:



> Tailwind spokesman PJ Rabice told VeloNews Friday morning that the decision was not based on "a failure to find a new sponsor."
> 
> Rabice did not elaborate, but said the company would offer further information during a conference call later in the day.




http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13071.0.html


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

There is a little too much attention in this thread being paid to doping, IMO. 

Yes, there is bad publicity right now with cycling's association with doping. But having a stronger anti-doping stance would not have saved Tailwind. In fact, by comparison, they look squeaky clean to the outside observer, while having had the most success of any team in the peleton (assuming TdF wins = success).

The main problem is the lack of organiztion among the ProTour, ASO, et al. The USPS was spending less than $10M/yr on cycling. Tailwind wanted $15M/yr. That step up to the "major leagues" of advertising was supposed to come with the success of the ProTour. 

Instead, the ProTour is on life support. They are in open warfare with their key organizing partners. Aslo, having licensed so many teams, the potential value is diluted, rather than strengthened. 

So, it's really a combination of two main factors. Doping represents a down-side risk, and there is unsufficient upside opportunity available in the ProTour to justify the risk.

JSR


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

JSR said:


> There is a little too much attention in this thread being paid to doping, IMO.
> 
> Yes, there is bad publicity right now with cycling's association with doping. But having a stronger anti-doping stance would not have saved Tailwind. In fact, by comparison, they look squeaky clean to the outside observer, while having had the most success of any team in the peleton (assuming TdF wins = success).
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

mtbykr said:


> Interesting comment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah well...

I read that somewhere on thepaceline as well I think. It's probably coz of the sponsor issues like Tailwind wanting more money invested or so as well. But, I think they actually were close to naming a new sponsor but somehow things didn't happen the way we all thought with them having great success lately.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

uzziefly said:


> THIS? NUTS... but yeah Riis fought like hell....


Unlike Riis, Armstrong friggin QUIT. I guess he wanted the team to go out on top too.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*Something Bruyneel knows but isn't telling us?*



Len J said:


> are people going to hang onto that "Never tested positive" as proof of anything?
> 
> Riss never tested positive
> Zabel never tested positive
> ...


What I'm wondering is if Bruyneel and the Disco staff knew that a storm
was approaching and that they won't be able to do anything. One 
possible storm would be that AC if found to have in fact be the same AC
with the blood bags.

Who knows anymore?


----------



## hookypro (Aug 1, 2006)

*Slipstream?????*



uzziefly said:


> So what about Slipstream? How do we know that they aren't a "new Disco/USPS" so to speak and they might actually have a very good doping program as people say Disco had too.
> 
> How do we know other teams aren't doing it too?



Slipstream is in the same situation as Tailwind......they haven't had a sponsor in a long time.......and they have been looking hard.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Einstruzende said:


> Anyone want to venture a guess as to which team Trek will sponsor? They almost have to sponsor a ProTour team with the commitment they've made towards technology. I hear Astana is looking for a bike provider ...


Barloworld. I heard a rumour that Cannondale might not renew Barloworld now that it has Liquigas (not to mention HealthNet), and Barloworld will likely scoop up Disco's ProTour license for 2008. Plus Barloworld is UK-registered which is a big market for Trek.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

I don't know, for some reason I think that Johan wouldn't have had a problem finding a sponsor if Levi won the Tour. Having an American champion would make good publicity for an American company, a la Lance. Contador just wouldn't cut it on the Wheaties box and with this cloud of doping allegations over his head. Maybe he should have worked for Levi in the Pyrenees..haha!


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Trek'll sponsor Slipstream. Bet on it.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

Vaughters will not be picking up many - if any - Disco riders. He knows firsthand who is clean and who is not. 

This was a clear indictment of 'business as usual' in the pro peloton, as was the firing of Rabobank's DS. 

Maybe JB will end up at Tinkoff. 

Sad to see an American powerhouse fold, but I have high hopes for Slipstream. Hope they don't f it up. . .


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Len J said:


> are people going to hang onto that "Never tested positive" as proof of anything?
> 
> Riss never tested positive
> Zabel never tested positive
> ...



Actually Rumsas did test positive.. it just wasn't at the tour.. and he had the balls to be using EPO at the Giro 10 months after hanging his wife out to dry like he did. Good people Raimondas is.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Len J said:


> is "while on the squad". When just about every rider that leaves seems to need to dope to maintain their smae level of performance, doesn't that say something to you about what was happening on Disco?
> 
> It's a good thing because one more team that didn't want the sport to move away from doping, that liked things just the way they were has been given a wake up call.
> 
> ...


Sure it says something to me. It says no one tested positive. Look, I think they're all doing it, but testing negative is not evidence of doping. And as someone else has pointed out, not every rider that has left has tested positive. In any event, using the fact that riders get caught _*after*_ they leave Disco as evidence that they doped while on Disco, where they never got caught, is illogical and speculative.

That's why I say it's a looking glass world--the more Disco riders test negative, the more positive you are they are doping. On the other hand, there's T-Mobile. This team admits to a long-standing, team-wide doping program (speaking of the decision to hire Basso, how about a shoutout to Rolf Aldag--hasn't he kept his responsible position with T-Mobile?), has riders that have continued to be caught through this year, and has riders that have tested positive since leaving the team (_e.g._, Kessler and Vino). The more they test positive, the more positive you (maybe not you, but lots of people) are that they are clean. So it's good news that T-Mobile is staying in and bad news that Disco is getting out.

If this turns out to be good news for cycling, great, but that doesn't leap out as the most likely outcome.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Is it the sport? Is it just me? Both? But I couldn’t help the first thoughts that popped into my mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Only seven of the 20 ProTour teams met the deadline to sign the 'Managers' and other team staff's commitment to a new cycling': Ag2r, Bouygues Télécom, Cofidis, Crédit Agricole, Française des Jeux, Gerolsteiner and T-Mobile...

Discovery disbands

"We were in talks with a number of companies about the opportunity and were confident a new sponsor was imminent. We have chosen, however, to end those discussions."

"I've achieved everything that I could in the sport," the 43-year-old Bruyneel told AFP in Madrid. "I've always said that I wanted to stop on top and I think it's the right time.”
--------------------------------------------------------------
TF

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug10news3

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13071.0.html


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

JSR said:


> Aslo, having licensed so many teams, the potential value is diluted, rather than strengthened. JSR


Another French team...anybody?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

txzen said:


> Vaughters will not be picking up many - if any - Disco riders. He knows firsthand who is clean and who is not.
> 
> This was a clear indictment of 'business as usual' in the pro peloton, as was the firing of Rabobank's DS.
> 
> ...


Yeah he might pick some up perhaps. Levi maybe and Popo and Gusev probably. If these 3 go along with their current probable line up, it'd be awesome. Plus if George switches his mind and doesn't go to T-Mobile and signs for Slipstream... :idea: Hmmm...


----------



## wks9326 (Apr 24, 2004)

fornaca68 said:


> Barloworld. I heard a rumour that Cannondale might not renew Barloworld now that it has Liquigas (not to mention HealthNet), and Barloworld will likely scoop up Disco's ProTour license for 2008. Plus Barloworld is UK-registered which is a big market for Trek.


Not likely, Cannondale is part owner of Barloworld not just a sponsor.


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

harlond said:


> Sure it says something to me. It says no one tested positive. Look, I think they're all doing it, but testing negative is not evidence of doping. And as someone else has pointed out, not every rider that has left has tested positive. In any event, using the fact that riders get caught _*after*_ they leave Disco as evidence that they doped while on Disco, where they never got caught, is illogical and speculative.
> 
> That's why I say it's a looking glass world--the more Disco riders test negative, the more positive you are they are doping. On the other hand, there's T-Mobile. This team admits to a long-standing, team-wide doping program (speaking of the decision to hire Basso, how about a shoutout to Rolf Aldag--hasn't he kept his responsible position with T-Mobile?), has riders that have continued to be caught through this year, and has riders that have tested positive since leaving the team (_e.g._, Kessler and Vino). The more they test positive, the more positive you (maybe not you, but lots of people) are that they are clean. So it's good news that T-Mobile is staying in and bad news that Disco is getting out.
> 
> If this turns out to be good news for cycling, great, but that doesn't leap out as the most likely outcome.




Very well said. I totally agree. Even for those of you who hated Disco, you have to understand this is very bad for cycling in America. We will be lucky to get any tv coverage anymore. Enjoying seeing Disco going down is very much as the old saying goes, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

uzziefly said:


> Yeah he might pick some up perhaps. Levi maybe and Popo and Gusev probably. If these 3 go along with their current probable line up, it'd be awesome. Plus if George switches his mind and doesn't go to T-Mobile and signs for Slipstream... :idea: Hmmm...


I don't think Slipstream has an endless budget. With their current contracts of high quality riders, I'm not sure how much they have left to pick up some well paid Disco boys. Unless Levi and Popo humble themselves and settle for what they can get from Slipstream. I guess a lower paying job is better than none...


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

hookypro said:


> Slipstream is in the same situation as Tailwind......they haven't had a sponsor in a long time.......and they have been looking hard.


No, what I meant was well, apart from this, that would they turn out to be another "team that dopes very well and never gets caught" just like Disco is supposed to be as in the eyes of many?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

TurboTurtle said:


> Is it the sport? Is it just me? Both? But I couldn’t help the first thoughts that popped into my mind.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Only seven of the 20 ProTour teams met the deadline to sign the 'Managers' and other team staff's commitment to a new cycling': Ag2r, Bouygues Télécom, Cofidis, Crédit Agricole, Française des Jeux, Gerolsteiner and T-Mobile...
> 
> ...


Well I just wanna know why Tailwind pulled out despite being close to signing a new sponsor. 

But wait, Tailwind is the company behind it all now right? Then Disco is what, their main sponsor? Can't the whole team just well, like, look for a new sponsor to back them up seeing as they were close to getting one anyway? And that new sponsor could own the team or something.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

danielc said:


> I don't know, for some reason I think that Johan wouldn't have had a problem finding a sponsor if Levi won the Tour. Having an American champion would make good publicity for an American company, a la Lance. Contador just wouldn't cut it on the Wheaties box and with this cloud of doping allegations over his head. Maybe he should have worked for Levi in the Pyrenees..haha!


Well..... Actually they were close to getting a new sponsor as quoted on Velonews and thepaceline. So... yeah...


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

FondriestFan said:


> Trek'll sponsor Slipstream. Bet on it.


I think so too. But would Slipstream be given a Pro Tour slot or would they be a wildcard team?


----------



## CaseLawZ28 (Jul 14, 2005)

uzziefly said:


> But wait, Tailwind is the company behind it all now right?


Tailwind is the team (as Slipstream is the team, it is the management). They managed the team, they had the contracts, etc. Disco was just the logo that happened to be on the jersey and buses and bikes. For "Disco" to carry on, a new managrment company would have to be formed and everything started from scratch.

You really need to step back from the keyboard for a few hours. Your brain is scrambled.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

CaseLawZ28 said:


> Tailwind is the team (as Slipstream is the team, it is the management). They managed the team, they had the contracts, etc. Disco was just the logo that happened to be on the jersey and buses and bikes. For "Disco" to carry on, a new managrment company would have to be formed and everything started from scratch.
> 
> You really need to step back from the keyboard for a few hours. Your brain is scrambled.


Right. I totally forgot as it slipped my brain. My brain IS scrambled a little. :mad2:

Just like Manchester United is the team and AIG is their sponsor. 

But to call it the Discovery Channel Pro Cycling team is kinda like to call it AIG football club, owned by Manchester United.  

Well, Astana started from scratch now did they? No? I hope the team somehow carries on though it's just a sad fan's wish. Kinda like wishing David Beckham would stay with United then, or make a U-turn and stay with Real lately... 

I wonder if Slipstream could sign a few of the riders. I hope they can get a sponsor so that would make it a little easier to sign more riders.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

I think they saw that cycling is changing, that being clean (for real, not as in 'we never tested positive' crap) will be mendatory eventually and the team knew they couldn't go on with their doping program... Better get out before they can't say 'we never tested positive' anymore. I think this is good news for cycling.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

harlond said:


> Sure it says something to me. It says no one tested positive. Look, I think they're all doing it, but testing negative is not evidence of doping. And as someone else has pointed out, not every rider that has left has tested positive. In any event, using the fact that riders get caught _*after*_ they leave Disco as evidence that they doped while on Disco, where they never got caught, is illogical and speculative.
> 
> _That's why I say it's a looking glass world--the more Disco riders test negative, the more positive you are they are doping. _On the other hand, there's T-Mobile. This team admits to a long-standing, team-wide doping program (speaking of the decision to hire Basso, how about a shoutout to Rolf Aldag--hasn't he kept his responsible position with T-Mobile?), has riders that have continued to be caught through this year, and has riders that have tested positive since leaving the team (_e.g._, Kessler and Vino). The more they test positive, the more positive you (maybe not you, but lots of people) are that they are clean. So it's good news that T-Mobile is staying in and bad news that Disco is getting out.
> 
> If this turns out to be good news for cycling, great, but that doesn't leap out as the most likely outcome.


Indeed. What I've been trying to say for a while now. Boonen wasn't positive after leaving. Savoldelli wasn't either. Levi wasn't too when he left. HECK, Floyd Landis wasn't positive till well, last year so to speak. 

Right on man! What about other teams that have no rider test positive so far as well? There are such teams right I'm sure. What's to say that maybe Slipstream won't be a "No positive while on the team but positive after leaving Slipstream" team just like Disco "is" so to speak? Maybe Slipstream might have a 'very good doping program too' just 'like Disco does.'

I think it is bad that Disco is going out. On a commemorative note, the blue train they had was really a sight to remember and this year's black and blue train on the final few days was something too.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

harlond said:


> Sure it says something to me. It says no one tested positive. Look, I think they're all doing it, but testing negative is not evidence of doping. And as someone else has pointed out, not every rider that has left has tested positive. In any event, using the fact that riders get caught _*after*_ they leave Disco as evidence that they doped while on Disco, where they never got caught, is illogical and speculative.
> 
> _That's why I say it's a looking glass world--the more Disco riders test negative, the more positive you are they are doping. _On the other hand, there's T-Mobile. This team admits to a long-standing, team-wide doping program (speaking of the decision to hire Basso, how about a shoutout to Rolf Aldag--hasn't he kept his responsible position with T-Mobile?), has riders that have continued to be caught through this year, and has riders that have tested positive since leaving the team (_e.g._, Kessler and Vino). The more they test positive, the more positive you (maybe not you, but lots of people) are that they are clean. So it's good news that T-Mobile is staying in and bad news that Disco is getting out.
> 
> If this turns out to be good news for cycling, great, but that doesn't leap out as the most likely outcome.


Indeed. What I've been trying to say for a while now. Boonen wasn't positive after leaving. Savoldelli wasn't either. Levi wasn't too when he left. HECK, Floyd Landis wasn't positive till well, last year so to speak. 

Right on man! What about other teams that have no rider test positive so far as well? There are such teams right I'm sure. What's to say that maybe Slipstream won't be a "No positive while on the team but positive after leaving Slipstream" team just like Disco "is" so to speak? Maybe Slipstream might have a 'very good doping program too' just 'like Disco does.'

I think it is bad that Disco is going out. Especially for cycling in America but at least Slipstream looks like it could get a slot in the Pro Tour team list next year, wildcard or not. On a commemorative note, the blue train they had was really a sight to remember and this year's black and blue train on the final few days was something too.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

tellico climber said:


> Very well said. I totally agree. Even for those of you who hated Disco, you have to understand this is very bad for cycling in America. We will be lucky to get any tv coverage anymore. Enjoying seeing Disco going down is very much as the old saying goes, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"



Right on man. I think it'll be really hard to get cycling tv coverage now but Slipstream might be a shot at this for us.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

kyler2001 said:


> I don't think Slipstream has an endless budget. With their current contracts of high quality riders, I'm not sure how much they have left to pick up some well paid Disco boys. Unless Levi and Popo humble themselves and settle for what they can get from Slipstream. I guess a lower paying job is better than none...


Well, they could if they manage to get a sponsor. Also, they might just have some more for such riders and right now, they might well do something to get these riders and maybe TD as well perhaps coz well, they are gonna need a team (the riders) and Slipstream is trying to form a strong team to challenge on all fronts. I think they could do it and I hope they get a sponsor so they would be able to if they don't already have the means to.

Levi and Popo and maybe TD might need a paycut but I think they might not be too irked about it coz they would be going into a strong team with lots of hope and well, should sponsors come in, they would get pay rises as well.


----------



## CaseLawZ28 (Jul 14, 2005)

If a sponsor comes along for Slipstream, the extra cash flow will probably go to pay back loans the shareholders made to the company or loans they company has got elsewhere. Not likely they would dump more cash into paying riders.

More relevant, is that Slipstream wants to create an American team of new young riders with _some_ older riders to bring these young'ins along and grow them - not to bring in a bunch of established pros to take the focus of the core (the young and original team members). Vaughters doesn't want to dump all the young riders and Slipstream members who are at the center of the team to just recreate a defunct Discovery team. Tommy D would be a good bet, but I wouldn't bet on Levi or Popo (he's not American or English, and Vaugthers focus is on American riders - yes yes, I know not the entire team is American, but that is his focus).


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Eki*



uzziefly said:


> Indeed. :cryin:
> 
> So where would the riders go?
> 
> Where would Johan and all the staff like Dirk, Eki and all go? Mechanics and soigneurs and all?


I bet he goes to Tinkoff.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Dan Gerous said:


> I think they saw that cycling is changing, that being clean (for real, not as in 'we never tested positive' crap) will be mendatory eventually and the team knew they couldn't go on with their doping program... Better get out before they can't say 'we never tested positive' anymore. I think this is good news for cycling.


Still, there's no 100% proof that Disco dopes and covers up very well. I'm not saying they Don't dope. But neither am I saying they are.

Other teams have riders never being positive before. Does it mean they all have a very good doping program too?

And, those who left Disco being positive? Boonen, Levi, Savoldelli, and evey Floyd wasn't positive (albeit Floyd was last year so to speak) and there are several more who are still clean so to say. 

Will George get busted next year? I honestly do not think so. Popo? Nope I don't think so too. Noval and Paulinho? Gusev? 

Also, Lance was the most tested cyclist and he was clean still. WADA, USADA and a few other agencies tested him and he was found clean. It can be argued he paid them off well or so but if that was the case, surely it would be too much even for him and his team to do so with so many agencies testing him throughout his career.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

tarwheel2 said:


> The dopers are ruining professional cycling. What company -- eg, sponsor -- would want to be associated with illegal drugs and cheating?



I can think of a few: Enron, WorldCom, Pfizer, etc......


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

CaseLawZ28 said:


> If a sponsor comes along for Slipstream, the extra cash flow will probably go to pay back loans the shareholders made to the company or loans they company has got elsewhere. Not likely they would dump more cash into paying riders.
> 
> More relevant, is that Slipstream wants to create an American team of new young riders with _some_ older riders to bring these young'ins along and grow them - not to bring in a bunch of established pros to take the focus of the core (the young and original team members). Vaughters doesn't want to dump all the young riders and Slipstream members who are at the center of the team to just recreate a defunct Discovery team. Tommy D would be a good bet, but I wouldn't bet on Levi or Popo (he's not American or English, and Vaugthers focus is on American riders - yes yes, I know not the entire team is American, but that is his focus).


True. He might sign TD or maybe Popo if possible coz they are young (Popo being younger) and well, this would be a god crux of riders and they can help out the younger lads as well.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Dan Gerous said:


> I think this is good news for cycling.


Huh??? How can this be good? Because it means teams will be more accountable? How does the intangible upside in that compare to the tangible fact that, at least in the USA, the market is telling pro cycling that sponsoring a top-shelf team (from the DSs to the riders, etc.) isn't worth $15 million. To be clear, this is a very bad development for cycling in the USA. Yes, US cycling will come out of it in a year or two with a new ProTour team, but there won't be any dominant US-based squad challenging across the board at every ProTour event.

This will likely spell the end of full-blown Versus coverage for the TdF also. I mean, Hincapie riding for T-Mobile? C'mon, this is not good.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

dagger said:


> I bet he goes to Tinkoff.


Yeah that could be an option for him.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Len J said:


> No positive tests is more an indication of the discipline & sophistication involved in the doping program than it is of innocence.....
> 
> Len


No proof of guilt is proof of extreme guilt- the same logic used in the Salem witch trials, the persecution of the Japanese Americans in WWII, and the Red Scares of the 50s. "They're so guilty they can get away with it."


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

I haven't been able to read through all the posts, but I'm kinda with Len on this one. JB was on Once with Riis when he won the Tour doped in '96. Once later became Liberty Seguros which, after it was disbanded for doping, for all intents and purposes later became Astana. And we know the trouble they're in right now. Alberto Contador's Puerto speculation also goes back to when he was on Once. This points to systemic doping. Then you factor in Lance's '99 tour, Tyler, Floyd, etc., and it leaves little doubt.

Disco's hiring of Ivan Basso was such an asinine move, and basically a slap in the face to everyone who was concerned with doping in pro cycling.


----------



## roadnewguy (Feb 11, 2006)

Len J said:


> Money talks & the potential sponsors are saying they don't want to be associated with doping.
> 
> Discovery has led the "Head in the sand" approach to doping IMO.
> 
> ...



Then why is it that you don't hear about advertirsers pulling out of MLB games... Tha'ts just a lot of bull. Dopers are everywhere, it's just that cheating cyclists get caught and punished.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the difference is MLB does its own doping - cycling as an Olympic sport has to be under independent doping (FIFA seems to be strong enough to keep WADA under control). What is happening in cycling is a power struggle between different groups in part because there are so many rougly equally powerful stakeholders (ASO, UCI, WADA). Sponsors are going to be leary of getting into a sport they have little control over.


----------



## roadnewguy (Feb 11, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> the difference is MLB does its own doping - cycling as an Olympic sport has to be under independent doping (FIFA seems to be strong enough to keep WADA under control). What is happening in cycling is a power struggle between different groups in part because there are so many rougly equally powerful stakeholders (ASO, UCI, WADA). Sponsors are going to be leary of getting into a sport they have little control over.


but baseball is an olimpic sport as well... but the point is: during the olympics they're likely to catch 3 or 4 dopers (just about the same # during the tour) and NBC or whatever station carries the schedule doesn't drop the coverage.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Nice rationalization.......*



roadnewguy said:


> Then why is it that you don't hear about advertirsers pulling out of MLB games... Tha'ts just a lot of bull. Dopers are everywhere, it's just that cheating cyclists get caught and punished.


but it doesn't fly. 

MLB is an institution in the US. Barry Bonds and those caught cheating are a small % of MLB athletes. Cycling is a small sport in the US, with a much higher % publicity problem than MLB. If MLB started having the kind of problems cycling was having, you would see advertisers pulling out.

Len


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Your one sentance says it all.*



harlond said:


> Sure it says something to me. It says no one tested positive. *Look, I think they're all doing it,* but testing negative is not evidence of doping. And as someone else has pointed out, not every rider that has left has tested positive. In any event, using the fact that riders get caught _*after*_ they leave Disco as evidence that they doped while on Disco, where they never got caught, is illogical and speculative.
> 
> That's why I say it's a looking glass world--the more Disco riders test negative, the more positive you are they are doping. On the other hand, there's T-Mobile. This team admits to a long-standing, team-wide doping program (speaking of the decision to hire Basso, how about a shoutout to Rolf Aldag--hasn't he kept his responsible position with T-Mobile?), has riders that have continued to be caught through this year, and has riders that have tested positive since leaving the team (_e.g._, Kessler and Vino). The more they test positive, the more positive you (maybe not you, but lots of people) are that they are clean. So it's good news that T-Mobile is staying in and bad news that Disco is getting out.
> 
> If this turns out to be good news for cycling, great, but that doesn't leap out as the most likely outcome.


the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that it is highly likely they have the most sophisticated doping program in the world. 

It's more likely than not.

Look at LA's 99 EPO positive
Look at all the ex posties that have tested positive
Look at all the contenders over the last 20 years and count what % have been dirty.
Look at the drugs dumped in the dumpster by the Postie gofers.
Look at Bruyneels riding history and who he associated with.
Look at carmichaels' doping history
Look at Ferrari's doping palmares.

All I'm saying is that in light of all the other indicators, to point to the no testing positive as evidence of innocence is naive at best, and denial at worst.

len


----------



## RickyRitalin (Dec 16, 2005)

*This is more indicative of the infighting between UCI and ASO.*

I think one needs to keep in mind the other headaches of running a ProTour team. The budget keeps escalating (salaries, # of riders, #of venues), popularity among advertising and marketing arenas is still small potatoes and is stained beyond recognition by the doping blight, and growing dissention amongst riders (?dopers versus non-dopers, etc.) are large issues that have contributed to the death of Disco.

However, the overwhelming weight that crushed Disco is the incessant infighting amongst the cycling bodies (ASO and UCI - mix in WADA and the European governments). This is very similar to what has happened with open-wheel auto racing in the US - CART vs IRL. They both got greedy and narcissistic and left out the people that drive the sport - the athletes and the fans. I think Tailwind had enough, especially after their treatment in the Basso affair (it really was a stupid move on Tailwind's part).


----------



## scott bdc (Oct 16, 2002)

I just don't get it - I mean, honestly, in certain circles, $15 million a year is NOTHING! A 30 second Super Bowl spot goes for $2.5 million. A "normal" 30 second commercial during a popular network show can easily go for $250,000. The left side of the Yankees infield (that's shortstop and third base for you non-baseball types) earns more than $40 million per year. If a tour stage victory IS actually worth about $10 million (or is that 10 million euros?) in publicity (isn't that what Cadel's team is suing Astana for?) it seems to me that sponsoring this particular team ought to be a pretty lucrative deal. I'm a humble public servant, so what the hell do I know, but I've gotta believe that someone like, say, Anheuser-Busch, or a major car company, has an advertising budget in the multi-hundred million dollar range?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

re baseball as an olympic sport-it's out in 2012. MLB did not allow its players to participate. The reason was doping control--WADA is far more stringent than the MLB collective bargaining agreement. MLB had no interest in being under IOC rules. The lack of doping control, lack of MLB involement, were reasons why baseball was dropped.


----------



## CaseLawZ28 (Jul 14, 2005)

DrRoebuck said:


> I haven't been able to read through all the posts, but I'm kinda with Len on this one. JB was on Once with Riis when he won the Tour doped in '96. Once later became Liberty Seguros which, after it was disbanded for doping, for all intents and purposes later became Astana. And we know the trouble they're in right now.


Riis wasn't on Once, nevermind with Bruyneel.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

fornaca68 said:


> Huh??? How can this be good? Because it means teams will be more accountable? How does the intangible upside in that compare to the tangible fact that, at least in the USA, the market is telling pro cycling that sponsoring a top-shelf team (from the DSs to the riders, etc.) isn't worth $15 million. To be clear, this is a very bad development for cycling in the USA. Yes, US cycling will come out of it in a year or two with a new ProTour team, but there won't be any dominant US-based squad challenging across the board at every ProTour event.
> 
> This will likely spell the end of full-blown Versus coverage for the TdF also. I mean, Hincapie riding for T-Mobile? C'mon, this is not good.


It's a good thing for cycling since Disco were one of the teams that just turn their back to a cleaning of the sport. I don't have the same perspective as americans since I'm not in the US though, it's more a global point of view. I think all teams should step up in the fight against doping, I mean do it for real, not just say 'we never tested positive' and hire known dopers and keep the best doping program active...

Most of the Disco fans are Disco fans because of Lance. I think people, broadcasters and sponsors in the US will be interested in cycling even without Disco if there are great credible athletes to support. People who are hooked on cycling because of Lance and Disco wont sell their bikes and stop riding because Discovery is gone. I hope not anyway.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

scott bdc said:


> I just don't get it - I mean, honestly, in certain circles, $15 million a year is NOTHING!


No, it always SOMETHING! Even if it was a small part of a large budget, as in your A-B example, it would be important for the advertiser to know it was money well spent. 

"Money well spent" = reaching the right people with the message you want delivered. A-B might want to reach males aged 25-40 with a message about the sex appeal of drinking beer. Cycling, if it was on tv in the States, might provide the medium for getting that message to those people. 

Then the advertiser would be looking for ways to leverage that exposure. A-B would probably want their tv ads, print ads, store displays, etc. to have a tie-in. For instance, there might be buddies riding hard and having a beer afterward (the waitress would have to look longingly at their thighs of steel to indicate sex appeal ).

My point is, the $15M may be a small part of the budget, but budget must also include all the other components of an advertising campaign.

Finally, all advertising is meant to project an important component of the advertiser's image. If doping is strongly associated with the message received by the viewer that is probably a bad thing for the advertiser. Hence, $15M not well spent.

JSR


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Len J said:


> the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that it is highly likely they have the most sophisticated doping program in the world.
> 
> It's more likely than not.
> 
> ...


Testing negative _*is*_ evidence of innocence, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is not *conclusive* evidence of innocence (and I didn't use it that way), but it is certainly evidence of innocence. But you use it as evidence of the sophistication of their program, and hence as evidence of guilt.

If you were going by the hard evidence, your anti-doping spite would be aimed more at T-Mobile than Discovery, but you're entitled to dislike whoever you want. If I were a sponsor, for $45 million, my money would be on Discovery, because for that amount, I could have the equivalent of T-Mobile's anti-doping program and the sophistication of Disco that keeps positive tests off the table, not to mention the results. If that kind of team can't get sponsorship, just seems bad to me.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

The fact that one of the strongest and most dominating teams in the last decade cannot secure a sponsor says something about what's going on in the sport today. Has there been anything like this in other sports? Just curious...
I'm surprised that a Chinese sponsor didn't step up considering they have a rookie on Discovery. I suppose they probably wanted a guarantee that he would ride in the Tour.


----------



## Mike Prince (Jan 30, 2004)

scott bdc said:


> I just don't get it - I mean, honestly, in certain circles, $15 million a year is NOTHING! A 30 second Super Bowl spot goes for $2.5 million. A "normal" 30 second commercial during a popular network show can easily go for $250,000. The left side of the Yankees infield (that's shortstop and third base for you non-baseball types) earns more than $40 million per year. If a tour stage victory IS actually worth about $10 million (or is that 10 million euros?) in publicity (isn't that what Cadel's team is suing Astana for?) it seems to me that sponsoring this particular team ought to be a pretty lucrative deal. I'm a humble public servant, so what the hell do I know, but I've gotta believe that someone like, say, Anheuser-Busch, or a major car company, has an advertising budget in the multi-hundred million dollar range?


Yes, but for the most part these are mostly mainstream US sports and events - even though the population here on this board is passionate about the sport of cycling, it is not a mainstream sport here in the states. Many companies trying to get a worldwide presence through sport sponsorship are already heavily involved with motorsports and other sports that have a bit less clouds in the sky over them.

Think of it this way - how much success do you think a European baseball team would have securing a homeland sponsor to play Major League Baseball?


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

CaseLawZ28 said:


> Riis wasn't on Once, nevermind with Bruyneel.


Damn, yeah, got my dopers confused. I was more concerned with Bruyneel's link to Once, which has had tons of problems in various incarnations.


----------



## CaseLawZ28 (Jul 14, 2005)

danielc said:


> The fact that one of the strongest and most dominating teams in the last decade cannot secure a sponsor says something about what's going on in the sport today. Has there been anything like this in other sports? Just curious...
> I'm surprised that a Chinese sponsor didn't step up considering they have a rookie on Discovery. I suppose they probably wanted a guarantee that he would ride in the Tour.


They didn't say anything about being unable to secure a sponsor. In fact they said they called off sponsor ship talks. Something more is here besides a team folding due to no sponsorship being available.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Tailwind sports did NOT pull out because of not being able to find a sponsor. They were close to getting a new deal in fact but pulled out due to other reasons. This can be found on thepaceline as well as velonews. 

So yeah. It's not that they can't find a sponsor. They are disbanding coz of other issues.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

roadnewguy said:


> Then why is it that you don't hear about advertirsers pulling out of MLB games... Tha'ts just a lot of bull. Dopers are everywhere, it's just that cheating cyclists get caught and punished.


The fact that people tried doping in this year's tour, with the spotlight pointing directly down at them, points to systemic abuse and means they are borderline pathological in their reliance on it. That's different than baseball or any other sport.

Also, pro sports teams in mainstream American sports (NASCAR excluded) aren't "sponsored" the way cycling teams are. In cycling, the team and the riders become a reflection of the sponsor. They zip up their jerseys when they win a stage, etc. Therefore, unless an athlete has an ad contract, like a Kobe or a Jordan, the doping isn't reflected as much on the advertisers/sponsors.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that it is highly likely they have the most sophisticated doping program in the world.
> 
> It's more likely than not.
> 
> ...


He was positive in 99? (Lance) ?? :idea:

Hasn't he never tested positive?


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

uzziefly said:


> He was positive in 99? (Lance) ?? :idea:
> 
> Hasn't he never tested positive?


Oh, right, even though the testers had no idea whose sample was whose, they somehow managed to spike his sample with r-EPO.

He totally doped in '99 ... at least.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Both your sources are based on.......*



uzziefly said:


> Tailwind sports did NOT pull out because of not being able to find a sponsor. They were close to getting a new deal in fact but pulled out due to other reasons. This can be found on thepaceline as well as velonews.
> 
> So yeah. It's not that they can't find a sponsor. They are disbanding coz of other issues.


tailwinds own press releases....don't take it as 100% fact. 

Trust me on this, while they could have gotten a sponsor, it was not at $15 mil/year, not even close.

Len


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Trip down memory lane.........*



uzziefly said:


> He was positive in 99? (Lance) ?? :idea:
> 
> Hasn't he never tested positive?


when they were validating that the new EPO test actually worked they selected random samples left over from the 99 tour. 

14 of the tests tested positive for EPO. Later, someone matched the samples with the name of the athletes and lo & behold 6 of the 14 samples that tested positive came from Lance.

Since there was no remaining B sample to do the double testing on, these test results were never going to be used officially. But like I said above, one more indication that "More likely than not" Disco and LA doped.

Len


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2007)

Len J said:


> when they were validating that the new EPO test actually worked they selected random samples left over from the 99 tour.
> 
> 14 of the tests tested positive for EPO. Later, someone matched the samples with the name of the athletes and lo & behold 6 of the 14 samples that tested positive came from Lance.
> 
> ...


Got a source for that Len J (just out of interest)?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Herre is one.......*



the_rydster said:


> Got a source for that Len J (just out of interest)?


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8740.0.html

Just do a Google search.

There was no test for EPO at the time of the 99 tour. 

In terms of officially santioning LA, there was no chance since there was no remaining B sample, the controls over the testing were not as rigid (LOL) as normal due to the reasons for the test, etc, etc. so nothing official could ever happen as a result of the positives. LA, obviously continues to deny it. But to me, it is one more straw on the camels back.

YMMV

Len


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

the_rydster said:


> Got a source for that Len J (just out of interest)?


You hadn't heard about this before?


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Len J said:


> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8740.0.html
> 
> Just do a Google search.
> 
> ...



all that experimental session turned out to be was a missed opportunity

disclaimers: my head isn't in the sand.....

...Len, please don't forget to add that the tests were "experimental" in nature, and rather sh!ttly done by LNDD  [download Vrijman Report pdf here] .... with better scientific controls something conclusive vis-a-vis LA could have come out of those tests...

...instead we just have more speculation...

...I know, alot of people attack the Vrijman report as BS since it was comissioned by the "old" UCI [even I take it with a grain of salt], but in follwoing teh FL case, and after watching the Phloyd hearings and getting a closer look at LNDD, the only conclusion I have come to is that:

sometimes the cops [LNDD] are as dirty as the crooks [dopers]


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

BIG difference between FL and LA: The testers did NOT know whose samples they were testing when they tested the '99 samples. When they tested Floyd's, they knew.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> tailwinds own press releases....don't take it as 100% fact.
> 
> Trust me on this, while they could have gotten a sponsor, it was not at $15 mil/year, not even close.
> 
> Len


Yeah I think so too.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

DrRoebuck said:


> Oh, right, even though the testers had no idea whose sample was whose, they somehow managed to spike his sample with r-EPO.
> 
> He totally doped in '99 ... at least.


And if the testers had no idea whose sample it was, how come you knew it's his? :idea:


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> when they were validating that the new EPO test actually worked they selected random samples left over from the 99 tour.
> 
> 14 of the tests tested positive for EPO. Later, someone matched the samples with the name of the athletes and lo & behold 6 of the 14 samples that tested positive came from Lance.
> 
> ...





bonkmiester said:


> all that experimental session turned out to be was a missed opportunity
> 
> disclaimers: my head isn't in the sand.....
> 
> ...


Kinda my thoughts too. I'm not thoroughly convinced he doped but like I said, not thoroughly. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just not saying he definitely did either. It's a bad slate and some pretty incriminating stuff, but, he's denied it (who wouldn't?) and there hasn't been like a follow up so to speak to prove it was his and that he doped. 

Plus LNDD... And the old UCI... And..... yeah


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*If that were the only indicator..........*



uzziefly said:


> Kinda my thoughts too. I'm not thoroughly convinced he doped but like I said, not thoroughly. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just not saying he definitely did either. It's a bad slate and some pretty incriminating stuff, but, he's denied it (who wouldn't?) and there hasn't been like a follow up so to speak to prove it was his and that he doped.
> 
> Plus LNDD... And the old UCI... And..... yeah


I'd be less likely to believe it. But taken together with everything else, it's just one more piece of straw on the camels back.

Is it possible there was no doping on Disco/USPS? Sure.....but at this point I think it's a pretty low probability.

Len


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bonkmiester said:


> with better scientific controls something conclusive vis-a-vis LA could have come out of those tests...]


Sorta, but not quite.

First, those samples were only allowed to exist for the purpose of experimentation on new testing technique. Otherwise they would have been destroyed. It was explicit in the agreement that no rider could be found positive from whatever tests were developed. 

Second, because there was no way to use those samples in a positivie finding, the controls you allude to were not kept in place. 

Third, even with good controls, there is no science to support the use of blood that old being tested with those tests. 

I'm not apologizing for LA, who looked guilty here, just pointing out there was no way possible to make a positive finding.

JSR


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

Doping will never leave cycling as long as there are potential gains to be had. This is true for all sports. All the anti-doping witch hunt has done for cycling is to potentially destroy the sport, at the pro racing level anyway. Cycling may briefly appear over the next couple of years to be racing cleaner( percieved or real I dont know) but in time riders will cheat if they feel they can gain from it with minimal risk. If American football,basketball,etc were to go down this same self destructive path as cycling has you would see a similar outcome. For those of you who think that cycling,or any pro sport for that matter, can exist without any doping I have a brown nugget of gold floating in my toilet I would like to sell you. 

Discovery is probably no more or less guilty than any other pro team. If you are going to hate on Discovery, which I believe stems from your hatred of Armstrong, then you should also hate on the other Pro teams. I believe most peoples hatred of Disco/Postal and Armstong just comes from the fact that they were so damn successful. Some people for some reason seem to have problems with anybody who is always successful. If you think Armstrong doped, so what , it is obviously now clear that all his competition did also, so does it diminish his achievements. You people dont seem to hate the proven cheaters such as Ullrich and others, hmmm, could be that I smell contempt for success. Where is the passionate hate for Vino? I would be willing to bet that if Vino were an American with several TDF wins you would hate him also,.

A few years from now, pro cycling will have gone thru this self destructive process for no benefit. It will only have less public creditablity, less status, less money,less exposure with still the same doping problems. I will be willing to bet that at that point the doping will be shoved under the rug again just like it is in other major sports.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

JSR said:


> Sorta, but not quite.
> 
> First, those samples were only allowed to exist for the purpose of experimentation on new testing technique. Otherwise they would have been destroyed. It was explicit in the agreement that no rider could be found positive from whatever tests were developed.
> 
> ...


...you are reading way too much into what I wrote:


I wrote conclusive, not *finding*
when I wrote there were no scientific controls I was referring to "good science", not UCI doping control protocols
the samples were *urine* samples.
while there was certianly no way to make a positive doping finding, with proper science it would have been possible to reach valid conclusions regarding the presence of rEPO.
If you read the report, and you have a open mind, you'll come away reasonably suspicious of LNDDs competency. If you layer onto that the things learned about LNDD in the Floyd Landis case there is reasonable doubt about that lab...

Perhaps this is why other events are using different labs [Vuelta, World Champs & Tennis for example]

Let me be direct [I've posted this before]: The LNDD had a wonderful opportunity to do some good science and _definitivly_ prove that rEPO was present in those samples. They blew it with sloppy science.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

fornaca68 said:


> Huh??? How can this be good?


Hmm... let's see. Because this is the team that hired Basso, and got kicked out of the IPCT because of it?

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11301.0.html


----------



## scottyperkins (Jun 18, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> I can think of a few: Enron, WorldCom, Pfizer, etc......


...and any company hanging a banner on the walls at AT&T Park in San Francisco. Yep, that's the stadium that Barry Bonds help get funded with his 73 performance-enhanced home runs. It's all in how you market it.

It's wrong, no doubt, but we're all on a path to be watching a 100% clean and 100% amateur sport. Think shuffleboard. Those who scream for everyone to be squeaky clean need to be somewhat careful what they wish for. There's a great deal of obscurity in righteousness.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

scottyperkins said:


> It's wrong, no doubt, but we're all on a path to be watching a 100% clean and 100% amateur sport. Think shuffleboard. Those who scream for everyone to be squeaky clean need to be somewhat careful what they wish for. There's a great deal of obscurity in righteousness.


You seem to be saying here (and in another thread) that cycling should compromise on integrity in order to safeguard sponsorship money.....perhaps the authorities should not test at all.....or better still just pretend to test.....a nice _facade_ of a drug policy to appease the horrible anti-doping public....and the nasty self-righteous zealots like Dick Pound?

/Remind me to never buy anything of you if you are a salesman....or let you teach my kids if you are a teacher or similar.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bonkmiester said:


> ...you are reading way too much into what I wrote:
> 
> 
> I wrote conclusive, not *finding*
> ...


I understand your point better now (and stand corrected as to my brain cramp re: urine v blood). 

I am not a scientist, so I can't reasonably argue the validity of the scientific controls in place at LNDD on those urine samples I had understood that they were reasonably well controlled in terms of temperature and environment. Controlled sufficiently to do their experiments. I'm not qualified to say whether that's the actual fact.

I followed the FL case as closely as I could, and I share your concern about the operational capability of the staff at LNDD.


----------



## scottyperkins (Jun 18, 2007)

the_rydster said:


> You seem to be saying here (and in another thread) that cycling should compromise on integrity in order to safeguard sponsorship money.....perhaps the authorities should not test at all.....or better still just pretend to test.....a nice _facade_ of a drug policy to appease the horrible anti-doping public....and the nasty self-righteous zealots like Dick Pound?
> 
> /Remind me to never buy anything of you if you are a salesman....or let you teach my kids if you are a teacher or similar.


I'm actually not suggesting that at all. I think there should be stiff penalties for all forms of cheating in sports, be they drugs, point shaving, emery boards in mitts, whatever. There should be vigorous testing and controls to make sure the sport is as clean as it can possibly be. As I alluded to in the other thread, there's an approach that the UCI needs to find that ensures maximum integrity of the sport (which would have to be much more rigorous than what MLB and the NFL have today) but somehow doesn't spite itself to the extent that the sport ends up economically inviable, which is where cycling seems to be headed. 

My point about Pound, et al was that you don't need to attack the sport itself to attack the cheating within it. Pound seems utterly disinterested in maintaining the viability of the sports he's policing. If he's the visionary and free-thinker he presents himself to be, he'll work collaboratively with Pat McQuaid to find out a way that testing can be woven into the economic fabric of the sport, turning approaches like Slipstream's into positive models rather than just doing venomous quote-dropping. I don't think he has it in him, though. Lance and McQuaid seem to have Pound pegged. 

Leadership is about elevation and separation. Can anyone imagine what the US stock market would be like today if in 2001 US law enforcement and regulatory officials had spent all their media time talking about how utterly beyond repair the NYSE and NASDAQ were? Instead, they consistently spoke about the importance of stopping the fraud, implementing strict controls, and sending folks like Jeff Skilling to jail for a long time. Those leaders were elevating the institutions of the markets while attacking the cheaters and pointing to the results as examples. I'm sure today every high-flying executive has a burned-in mental portrait of Bernie Ebbers in his prison cell, and well they should.

That's separation we don't see from Pound and what erodes the confidence of potential investors in cycling. If Dick Pound were SEC chairman six years ago, he'd have called the NYSE, etc. "rampant dens of iniquity" and padlocked the doors to the trading floors. Afterward, he'd have pointed to the lack of global investment activity as clear evidence of his glowing successes. No activity, but hey, no fraud. "Problem solved".

There's a solution here, but the personalities have to focus on both the integrity and survival of the sport in balance. It was wrong for EPO to become so pervasive in cycling in the 90s, just like it was wrong for steriods to become pervasive in baseball in the 90s, swimming in the 80s, track and field in the 70s, etc. The question is where the sport goes from here, and will there even be something for us all to watch five years from now. I'm hoping yes.


----------

