# Letter to ASO and Christian Prudhomme



## nrspeed (Jan 28, 2005)

Please consider taking the time to send an email to Christian Prudhomme and the ASO regarding the decision to leave ASTANA out of ASO events for 2008. 

Christian Prudhomme
A.S.O
2 rue Rouget de Lisle
92137 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex
Tel. : 01 41 33 15 07
Fax : 01.41.33.15.09
E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]


Laurent Bezault, Assistant Competition Director
A.S.O
2 rue Rouget de Lisle
92137 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex
Tel. : 01 41 33 15 43
Fax : 01.41.33.15.49
E-mail: [email protected]


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

I'm not going to, but would you mind if I sent one congratulating them? Why are you so worked up by this, nobody died or anything.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

If I sent them an Email, it would be to congratulate them on a job well done.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Sending them a big thanks, good job, right now


----------



## Dank (Nov 26, 2006)

Why do the frenchies hate us Americans? I know, cause we kicked there asses at there tour 7 years in a row...


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Dank said:


> Why do the frenchies hate us Americans? I know, cause we kicked there asses at there tour 7 years in a row...


I think you're the one doing the hating here. Why are some people _so_ bothered by all this?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dank said:


> Why do the frenchies hate us Americans? I know, cause we kicked there asses at there tour 7 years in a row...


Astana is luxembourg based, has a kazak sponsor, their main rider for the tour is spanish, and their new directeur sportif is Belgium and their chief directeur sportif is french. 
I'm sure you have an extremely profound point but please explain.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

The teams have only themselves to blame.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

Mootsie said:


> The teams have only themselves to blame.



+1

letter of thanks off to ASO


----------



## jerryon (May 28, 2006)

Dank said:


> Why do the frenchies hate us Americans? I know, cause we kicked there asses at there tour 7 years in a row...


Also begs the question "Why do the italians hate "us"?". No giro for astana as well as an actual american team, being high road.

Must be Hamsten's fault for the american domination of 1 out of 90 giros. 

johan may have had a shot at two grand tours this year if he would of brought a team during the USPS days.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Funny how there wasn't this uproar when Astana were excluded from the Giro for sending poor teams. It's obviously far more unacceptable to ban a team for doping. Hmm, strange logic.

brspeed, would you be sending your letter if it was Cofidis that had been excluded? Or High Horse? Or Rabobank? Hmm, thought not. I guess for all 99ers Bruyneel=Armstrong and Astana=Disco Mk2 and the TdF is the only race that really matters. It's sad really that some fanboys can't love the racing for the racing...


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Just emailed Prudhomme to say thanks


----------



## nrspeed (Jan 28, 2005)

Its odd how people ASSume I wanted them to send letters of disgust to the ASO. I merely provided readily available contact information for people to voice their opinions to the source. Its up to you to send an email for or against the decision.


----------



## mavicwheels (Oct 3, 2007)

*critique*

What I am against in all of this is the rules for admission into any of the races. There is no clearly defined set of rules to go by. The "supposed rules" change so often it makes you dizzy just trying to keep up. Teams that have shown no real instinct to attack or win races are invited, but teams that can field a strong lineup are left out. Teams that have had riders caught doping are left out, but other teams who have riders that have been caught doping are let in (but they didn't get caught in one of the grand tours so its ok for the team to be let in.) Teams (i.e. rabbobank) who didn't know where their main rider was training for the G.C. at TDF missed an out of competition test. Even though the team knew of this deception they had him start anyway! Yet he was thrown out of the TDF and this year it looks like they will get an admit. The UCI is of no help. They also can't keep the rules straight and the prosecute riders retroactively for offenses that were not even on the books. They also will rule out bicycle designs that were allowed to race in other races yet are then illegal for this race. The standards are nebulous, mirror and smoke filled. There is nothing for the team to be able to go back to to help defend a design that is legitimate.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Dank said:


> I know, cause we kicked there asses at there tour 7 years in a row...





den bakker said:


> Astana is luxembourg based, has a kazak sponsor, their main rider for the tour is spanish, and their new directeur sportif is Belgium and their chief directeur sportif is french.
> I'm sure you have an extremely profound point but please explain.


Oh, and when you do explain Dank ... please take the time to check your english spelling (their instead of there) so that we Frenchies don't have to do it for you.


----------



## geoffrey ingraham (Jul 4, 2008)

Thanks? What are you Republicans?
You're thanking Prudhomme for excluding a group of riders that have done no wrong? This is creating a false tour. This may be policy...but its not effective. Who is it punishing that is at fault here? A sponsor? To actively exclude riders who have talent and have done no wrong...is creating just as false of a Tour as to include doping.
I am amazed at the lack of intelligence and support of bull headed decisions here...but then again...I'm NOT AT ALL!
Lovely chatting with you idiots.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I'll watch the Tour regardless because I love cycling.

But the fact that Cofidis was allowed in while Astana was excluded tells me that more than a little politics were involved.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Richard said:


> I'll watch the Tour regardless because I love cycling.
> 
> But the fact that Cofidis was allowed in while Astana was excluded tells me that more than a little politics were involved.


Of course it's all "politics" at one level or another, but Cofidis?

They had one guy get popped for something you or I could easily obtain and dope with. The more obvious choice of "politics" is Rabobank. Who were apparently close to not getting invited as well.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

geoffrey ingraham said:


> Thanks? *What are you Republicans?*
> You're thanking Prudhomme for excluding a group of riders that have done no wrong? This is creating a false tour. This may be policy...but its not effective. Who is it punishing that is at fault here? A sponsor? To actively exclude riders who have talent and have done no wrong...is creating just as false of a Tour as to include doping.
> I am amazed at the lack of intelligence and support of bull headed decisions here...but then again...I'm NOT AT ALL!
> Lovely chatting with you idiots.


Republicans? WTF does that have to do with this? What are you, a troll? 

NB: the last question is rethorical.


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

rogger said:


> What are you, a troll?


Dude with post count of 1 resurrects an old thread and gets his undies in a bunch. I'll go with a +1 on the troll.

Edit: I wonder why someone goes to the trouble of creating a user to dig up an old thread and go off half cocked. What's up with that?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

for all those who think ASO was right to exclude Astana, could you explain to me why Rabobank got an invitation? They were at fault for allowing Rasmussen to start last year and the recent court settlement revealed that Rabobank knew of his whereabouts all the time last year, although they acted like they were shocked with it all hit the fan during the tour. They also have a dirty trail of insinuations leading to the Vienna clinic, where Menchov and others were likely doping. Meanwhile, just about everything at Astana changes except its sponsorship and yet they are held accountable for old business.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Cyclingnews has an interview with Clerc where he addresses that.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news2


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

although he doesn't say what the real deciding factor probably was: Rabobank and its Dutch fans are more important to the tour than Kazakhstan. Spanish fans still have Valverde to cheer for (who is probably more popular in Spain than Contador anyway).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> although he doesn't say what the real deciding factor probably was: Rabobank and its Dutch fans are more important to the tour than Kazakhstan. Spanish fans still have Valverde to cheer for (who is probably more popular in Spain than Contador anyway).


That's basically what I've been saying here for months. A team had to go, just like Unibet did last year to show the UCI that the PT could not be forced on the organizers. If you look at the PT teams, Astana is the odd man out especially in light of what they've done to the Tour the last couple of years. Astana was the only logical decision, and once they were gone there was really no reason to remove another team. I think without the PT Astana would have been in the race this year.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Dwayne, I agree--amazing all the people (like the posts above) who believe Astana's exclusion was somehow a principled one and more than just the latest UCI-ASO power struggle. Riders really need a union that will protect their rights since it's clear the UCI won't.


----------

