# Having a Ball...



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Holy wow!

Just read an interview Michael Ball did with VeloNews.

Damn! No wonder some people don't like him.
He speaks his mind without worrying about what other's think. 
He just doesn't give a F what the establishment thinks. 
Right or wrong, I respect that.

And, what seems like him being an a-hole to most makes perfectly good sense to me.
He's running the team under a business model and I think that this is where the problem is.
In my humble and novice opinion, a cycling team is more organic than a business model. 

Can't say I disagree with him though on his decisions. 
He's swimming against the current. 
He is an entrepreneur's entrepreneur. 

One has to literally be self-employed to understand how he thinks and why he does what he does. Most people wouldn't understand his motives.

I am not apologizing for any of his actions because I don't know enough to comment and there have been many allegations posted about him (with no citeable references), but I have to say right here, right now, what he says in this interview is right on, it's reasonable and it makes perfect sense to me. 

How can he fail when he was never given a chance to even compete?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

I just have one thing to say...let the bikes talk!


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

VELONATION INTERVIEW...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/3340/Michael-Ball-Interview-No-apologies-no-regrets.aspx

Saturday, March 06, 2010
Michael Ball Interview: No apologies, no regrets
by Neil Browne at 1:19 AM EST 

When fashion designer Michael Ball hit the professional cycling scene in 2007, he brought with him the rebel attitude that embodied his Rock Racing team. He developed a love-hate relationship with the cycling community, where in most cases people would either love him, or they would hate him.

Ball has maintained that, while many of the riders he hired had a tainted past, everyone deserved a second chance, and he didn't have any qualms about giving it to them. For a sport that has been dogged by doping controversies in the last few years, the mere mention of Rock Racing would fuel heated debates about the subject.

Last year Ball decided to up the ante with the team and apply for a UCI Professional Continental license in an effort to take his team to Europe to race. He decided to hire American Floyd Landis to ride alongside Spaniards Oscar Sevilla, Francisco Mancebo and José Enrique Gutiérrez across the pond. The International Cycling Union denied the team's application as well as the appeal on the denial, and recently decided not to approve the team's subsequent application for a Mexican Continental license.

Now the Rock Racing team has exhausted its options to race professionally in 2010, leaving its contracted riders without a place to ride in a season that's already begun. VeloNation spoke to Ball about the situation, and discussed what happened over last couple of months, what's going to happen to the riders that were under contract and what the future holds for the Rock Racing team.

VeloNation: Months ago you tried to register the team as a Pro Continental squad but were denied by the UCI. You tried to register the team as a Continental squad, but were denied again. There were reports that you were trying to register the team in Mexico after that.

Michael Ball: That was from the beginning. Here is how screwed up the UCI is. All of our registration papers came from Mexico and they continued to call it an American team. No idiots read your e-mails and the forms! You know, they still have my money. They [UCI] still have my half-million dollars for the bank guarantee when we were trying to be Pro Continental.

VN: So here's these riders that have signed for Rock Racing this year. Doesn't that money go to them?

Ball: It was there for them if we got our [Continental] license. Yeah absolutely, if we got our license. When we didn't get our license, what am I supposed to do? Give them free money? What do I get out of it – nothing. That's the other jacked up thing about the sport. I could tell you rider after rider who says, 'You know man. I just don't feel like racing right now.' There are very few athletes that are like Tyler Hamilton who will compete and race no matter what because it is their job and their responsibility.

[Francisco] Mancebo, [Oscar] Sevilla, [Victor Hugo] Peña are real stellar, blue collar riders. They are not trying to scam someone. That's another thing I learned about this sport. There are so many scam artists who are just looking out for themselves and stab someone in the back. You only hear one side which says, I am this or I am that. But you don't know the other side of the story. I don't have the time or interest to defend myself. I don't need to. I have done and accomplished things that any of these riders in hundred lifetimes would never come close to.

VN: So where does this leave the team now? Guys are retiring or they have been given the opportunity to look for another team.

Ball: No, no, no. We are now going to be the baddest, fastest amateur team on the planet [laughing]! We are going to go to every race that we can, as long as the promoters want us, and kick everyone's ass like we have every year that we have been able to race.

It is a bad ass team. The core guys will be there. Gutierrez unfortunately retired. We were trying to do something like have him come on as a director sportif, but that didn't work out. However the team will be Mancebo, Sevilla, Pena, [Glen] Chadwick, three Mexicans and a Columbian. It's an eight man team.

VN: What about Freddy Rodriguez and Floyd Landis?

Ball: Let me tell you something about Floyd. I like the guy, but his idea of business dealings were not a lot to be desired. It didn't work out in the end because I couldn't take his word, so it ended. I'm fine with that. It didn't end in a bad way, but didn't end in a good way.

VN: What about Fred Rodriguez? He has been with you since the beginning.

Ball: I have to be honest with you, no one wanted to race with Freddy. The other riders did not want to race with him. He is a great guy, great athlete, but very difficult. What am I supposed to do when they [riders] are saying they do not want to race with him? You have to have the team dynamics. It's unfortunate, he is a great athlete and great guy, but I can't pay him for nothing.

It's unfortunate that [Patrick] McCarthy and Tony Cruz got caught up in it. It sucks. But I have no apology. I have done everything I can for this sport. I give the sport a different face, another option for the fans and to give riders who really deserve to race the opportunity to continue and draw a paycheck. There is not another person that can say they gave as much as I have financially, except for maybe Doug Ellis.

I have given my own personal wealth into this sport, even to the point where I am supporting the sport of cycling in the US through sponsoring races and underwriting events. To that point when Medalist Sports came to me in the 11th hour and said they needed more money to put on the national championships [2008 U.S. Cycling Championships in Greenville], they asked if I would be interested. I said, 'Sure, what is the return on this? What kind of marketing and branding?' They told me and we did it. I helped facilitate that race. Then in 2009 they did not invite us to the Tour of Missouri. They are some of the most unethical, hypocritical people I have ever met in my dealings in business. I have never seen anything like it.

VN: So why do you think that after you gave them money to support the U.S. Cycling Championships in 2008 they turn around in 2009 and do not invite the team to the Tour of Missouri?

Ball: Because they do not like me, and they used me. That's the thing with the sport. People just use each other. It's pretty crazy. They just used me and my money. They were happy to take my check. I'm sure if I said I would sponsor of the Tour of Missouri they would have let me in. Look at the Tour de Georgia. I had to sue them and then turn around and give them an “X” amount of dollars. I had to pay to race. Absolutely ridiculous!

VN: There were reports that you owed Medalist Sports money.

Ball: I don't owe medalist anything. They know that. Show me where I owe them money. Sue me then if I do. I don't owe anyone money.

VN: With the team reverting to an amateur status and you retaining the core riders, how are they making a living?

Ball: They are still drawing a paycheck. They can't race for free and I understand that. They are going to be the highest paid amateurs. It will be the fastest amateur team on the planet.

VN: So at races where you have done well at like Tour of Utah...

Ball: Don't forget Cascade [Classic], Vuelta a Chihuahua, Tour of California, where we would have podiumed if Mancebo hadn't crashed. If he hadn't crashed we were going to crush them on the last stage. Can you imagine if Mancebo was still there and what we could have done? Mancebo was, by far, the strongest rider there without a doubt. He was getting stronger every day.

Part 2 of the VeloNation's interview with Michael Ball concludes on Monday with his plans for the future of the team, the branding of Rock Racing and what he would change in the sport of cycling if he could.

We left off on our interview with Rock Racing’s Michael Ball two days ago where he discussed his recent difficulty obtaining a UCI license, the situation with American Floyd Landis and how, at least for the 2010 season, he plans to have the strongest amateur team on the planet.

Today we finish off with how Ball’s experience with cycling compares to his life in the fashion world, what he would change in the sport if he could, his new line of Rock Racing bikes and what the future holds for his Rock Racing team.

Read Part 1 of the Interview

VeloNation: How does the fashion world compare to the cycling world? It seems to me that cycling would be an easier industry to be involved in.

Michael Ball: I thought so [laughing]. From an industry standpoint cycling isn't as difficult as a business. As a sport that is something completely different. The sport isn't an industry per se. You are not making any money here. It's a pretty simple model and we're not getting rich. In the fashion industry I have to come out with four collections a year that better razzle and dazzle the buyer and consumer or you’re out of business. In cycling, you are developing new technology, a new paint scheme, the latest this, the latest that. It's a little bit easier. Once you establish yourself as making bicycles you are making bicycles. You don't need to come out with four different collections each year to stay on the front pages of magazines or in the window of Neiman Marcus.

VN: If you could wave a magic wand, what would you change about the sport of cycling?

Ball: I would decentralize it. The UCI holds too much power and that power needs to go to the riders. The riders are the ones that own the sport, but so many are happy to get a paycheck. A lot of them aren't the most sophisticated characters. I use Mancebo as an example. He is a very simple guy and most cyclists are. That is not a jab at them. This is only what Mancebo is interested in: his family - obviously, go out and train, go race, at the end of the day have a nice dinner and a bottle of Spanish wine – no matter where he is in the world and go home and f**k his wife. That's it! It's very simple: training, Spanish wine and f**k his wife. It's not too complicated and I think it is beautiful and that is the cool thing about cycling and what drives me to the sport. The 'pureness' of it. Forget about all the scandals and the politics. At the end of the day it is so simple and such a beautiful life compared to mine. Mine is as complicated as you can get.

VN: Where can someone go to get a Rock Racing bike? How are you distributing them?

Ball: We are distributing them ourselves and building [the brand] it from here. We are looking to get our distribution into South America and Mexico, because we are very popular down there. We have some interest in Europe. But for now we are keeping it close: here [U.S.], Mexico and South America. We are going to let it build in a very natural way. We are not going to go crazy and try to push this down peoples throats. Kind of the same way I built Rock and Republic - just do cool ****.

VN: Will you be able to order a bike online?

Ball: You will absolutely be able to order a bike online. The website is almost finished and looks really cool. The bikes are incredible, as is the apparel. The pricing is in line with today's world. The pricing is in the sweet-spot. I have been riding the prototype bike for over a year and now we have the production bike, which I am riding. Man oh man, really super cool. I am really proud of the production team, the design team, and now the sales team. It's such a great group of people to work with. They are very passionate and focused. We know we have something very special and different to offer.

VN: You seem very passionate about the sport of cycling. Why do you continue to try? Why don't you just say, 'I'm done with this.'?

Ball: I am passionate and competitive. I am not going to let Pat McQuaid of the UCI determine who I am as a person. F**k no! There comes a time when you just have to say these are the guys running things right now. Someday it will change but it will not change tomorrow, so I just have to learn how to live with it, or get out.

I'm not getting out, so I have to live with it. I could change the sport in a positive way and I think in some degree I have. The message has always been clear – whether it's in cycling or elsewhere, people deserve a second chance and an opportunity, within reason, obviously. For those to sit back and criticize or pass judgment on these riders, or myself, or anybody on this planet, look at yourself in the mirror and take inventory on the things you have or haven't done. That is my personal feeling and instinct, to give others the opportunity.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

lol at "doesn't give a F what the establishment thinks." that's great if you're 14. He's a tool and in no way good for the sport.

I'm delighted you enjoy him, however.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

blackhat said:


> lol at "doesn't give a F what the establishment thinks." that's great if you're 14. He's a tool and in no way good for the sport.
> 
> I'm delighted you enjoy him, however.


Agreed, however there are about 5 people on the planet who can say they dont care what others think and actually mean it. The more people rave they dont care, the more they actually do. He cares, he is out, I can honestly say that i dont give an F that he is gone but in all honesty I do care what people think. I am not one of the 5


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

*Take Home Exam...*

Interview? Sorry, that's a self-serving infomercial. Not even a hint of an in-your-face, challenging question. Obviously I don't know, but reads like it was scripted by Ball or his handlers.

My 8 month old granddaughter could hit home runs off those softball questions.

Where's Mike Wallace when you need him?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

So, any opinion on the actual substance of the interview? 

His allegations at how the UCI screwed him (and the team)?

Question: How did RR do where they were actually allowed to race?

Did they do well?


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Businessmen who don't pay their employees (see Creed), treat them like crap (see Creed, Baldwin ++++) and don''t walk the talk, deserve to called an A hole because that is what they are. Do a little Google on Mr Ball and you'll see he has a nasty past. He just continues to be a jerk. Enough said.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Mootsie said:


> Businessmen who don't pay their employees (see Creed), treat them like crap (see Creed, Baldwin ++++) and don''t walk the talk, deserve to called an A hole because that is what they are. Do a little Google on Mr Ball and you'll see he has a nasty past. He just continues to be a jerk. Enough said.



But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?

Why didn't he pay Creed (if he didn't)?

And, why did he treat Creed and Baldwin like crap (if he did)?

Besides "their side" of the story, is there any proof?

Ball getting sued?


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

2ndGen said:


> But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?
> 
> Why didn't he pay Creed (if he didn't)?
> 
> ...


http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0827_michael_ball_wm_01.pdf
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/tag/mike-creed/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rock-racing-searches-out-sponsorship
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2009/4/18/843673/rock-racing-fires-creed-interview
http://www.podiuminsight.com/2009/09/18/mike-creed-unplugged/
http://www.tmz.com/tag/MichaelBall/
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/beckham-in-jeans-lawsuit_1067632
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/nov2008/sb20081118_392896_page_2.htm

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

2ndGen said:


> But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?
> 
> Why didn't he pay Creed (if he didn't)?
> 
> ...


"Why is it that every person that comes into contact with Michael Ball falls out with him? I guess it's everyone else that is a fcuk head????"
Baden Cooke.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Ball is an idiot, a complete jerkoff and a waste of space in the cycling world.

The UCI didn't screw him, the UCI simply followed their procedures as they did with every other team. Even some pro tour teams had issues (see Astana and Lampre) and he's complaining that the UCI is out to get him. He didn't have the staff, the riders or the bank guarantee to secure a UCI pro license of any kind, and he's blaming the UCI. They will not bend the rules for many people, let alone him, after he's come out and blamed the UCI for his own shortcomings.

Ball's problem is that everyone else is at fault except himself. In all the dealings that went bad with RR, there is only ONE common denominator: Ball.

And what a classy guy..."a bottle of wine and to f**k his wife." How classy for an interview.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

den bakker said:


> "Why is it that every person that comes into contact with Michael Ball falls out with him? I guess it's everyone else that is a fcuk head????"
> Baden Cooke.



Could be. 

How many people have had falling outs with him compared to how many actually stay with him? 

Who's riding? Who isn't?

Is he right to use performance based pay or to keep only guys that produce?
It's not like his is the only team that has defections/team changes?

If RR didn't win 1 race since they began, they wouldn't matter.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Ball is an idiot, a complete jerkoff and a waste of space in the cycling world.


Why? 






> The UCI didn't screw him, the UCI simply followed their procedures as they did with every other team.


They keep everybody's money that they don't allow to race?






> Even some pro tour teams had issues (see Astana and Lampre) and he's complaining that the UCI is out to get him.


Astana got their license even while having "issues"...so that says what about Ball's statement that they are out to get him? 






> He didn't have the staff, the riders or the bank guarantee to secure a UCI pro license of any kind, and he's blaming the UCI.


No...he just literally has the MILLIONS to guarantee it.  






> They will not bend the rules for many people, let alone him, after he's come out and blamed the UCI for his own shortcomings.


But! What is the "official" reason the UCI gave? 

I can't find it anyway...just a lot of "could be", "maybe", "probably", but no "is". 

Do you know why? 







> Ball's problem is that everyone else is at fault except himself.


Funny, but I've read articles where he admits he made mistakes. 





> In all the dealings that went bad with RR, there is only ONE common denominator: Ball.


Uh, yeah. He solely owns the team/enterprise and he's a hands on owner.

You must believe that people should be allowed to be on a team regardless of how poorly they perform just because they sign a contract. Is that what you believe?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Could be.
> 
> How many people have had falling outs with him compared to how many actually stay with him?
> 
> ...


I hate to tell you kid, winning is NOT everything.

Cycling was, historically, a more sophisticated man's sport. It was supposed to be the sport of the upper class while other more "popular" sports are the sports of the masses. 

Ball is somewhere he does not fit in, does not belong, and is not wanted. He appeals to aggro teen agers and their anti-establishment type beliefs. Sure, he's won a couple races, but when your entire organization is putting forth the absolute contradictory image to the one established for a hundred years, and pissing off the powers that be (UCI) with your shenanigans and badmouthing, you are bound to get burned. I'm no fan of Pat McQuaid, but I applaud his handling of this whole mess. 

And THAT, kiddo, is why Rock is dead and will stay dead.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Mootsie said:


> http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0827_michael_ball_wm_01.pdf
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/tag/mike-creed/
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rock-racing-searches-out-sponsorship
> http://www.podiumcafe.com/2009/4/18/843673/rock-racing-fires-creed-interview
> ...


That's what I'm talkin' bout Moots!
Walkin' it like you talk it!
Appreciated!
Thank you! 

:thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Astana got their license even while having "issues"...so that says what about Ball's statement that they are out to get him?
> 
> 
> You must believe that people should be allowed to be on a team regardless of how poorly they perform just because they sign a contract. Is that what you believe?


Astana got their license by meeting all the requirements set forth by the UCI protour guidelines. Lampre barely did, and they got a provisional license issued (not sure if they have a permanent license in place yet.) Ball and Rock could not get the minimum guarantees of bank, roster and support staff to meet the requirements for Pro Continental status. Hell, he couldn't even get the paperwork IN ON TIME! And once he couldn't get that, the deadlines had passed for Professional status either, and so by his own shortcomings, is stuck with an amateur team. How is that the UCIs fault? Should they bend the rules because Ball is "cool"? (according to you anyway...)

And yes, if you sign a contract, you sign a contract. It's obvious that you know zip about contract negotiation or law. Unless there is a clause stipulating the terms of contract termination, you can not sign someone and then fire them because they didn't live up to your expectations. That's not how the real world works, and in the real world, that would land you in court defending a breach of contract suit.

So unless those rider's contracts expressly stated that "if they don't win, they don't race", is it illegal to stop paying them for their services.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> I hate to tell you kid, winning is NOT everything.


In competition? 






> Cycling was, historically, a more sophisticated man's sport. It was supposed to be the sport of the upper class while other more "popular" sports are the sports of the masses.


Excuse me, would you have any Gray Poupon? 
(sorry! couldn't resist man! :lol: )
















> Ball is somewhere he does not fit in, does not belong, and is not wanted.


"does not belong"? 

SNOBBED!

:lol:







> He appeals to aggro teen agers and their anti-establishment type beliefs. Sure, he's won a couple races, but when your entire organization is putting forth the absolute contradictory image to the one established for a hundred years, and pissing off the powers that be (UCI) with your shenanigans and badmouthing, you are bound to get burned.


And us adults with our "their anti-establishment type beliefs" too!

Didn't they win like everything they entered last year? 

Coming in the top 5 is winning "a couple races"?










* 2009 USA Cycling Professional Tour Standings*
*Team Standings*
1. Astana 264
2. Team Columbia-High Road 168
3. Garmin-Slipstream 138
4. Team Saxo Bank 112
5. *Rock Racing 69*
















> And THAT, kiddo, is why Rock is dead and will stay dead


Define "dead".

Aren't they still in existance?

Aren't they racing next year?

Did you read the article I posted?
(just wondering)


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Astana got their license by meeting all the requirements set forth by the UCI protour guidelines. Lampre barely did, and they got a provisional license issued (not sure if they have a permanent license in place yet.) Ball and Rock could not get the minimum guarantees of bank, roster and support staff to meet the requirements for Pro Continental status. Hell, he couldn't even get the paperwork IN ON TIME! And once he couldn't get that, the deadlines had passed for Professional status either, and so by his own shortcomings, is stuck with an amateur team. How is that the UCIs fault? Should they bend the rules because Ball is "cool"? (according to you anyway...)


Of course not, but as originally asked, why was RR denied?

Is there any way the public can have access to this information other than what Michael Ball stated? 
If the UCI has provided and explanation, can we access that information? 

Do "_you_" have a link that you gotten "_your_" explanation from? 

Isn't one of the complaints of the RR-Haters that he has "too many" people working for him?

As for their paperwork...

"That was from the beginning. Here is how screwed up the UCI is.

All of our registration papers came from Mexico and they continued to call it an American team. 

No idiots read your e-mails and the forms! 

You know, they still have my money. 

They [UCI] still have my half-million dollars for the bank guarantee when we were trying to be Pro Continental." Michael Ball

Did _you _read the article?





> And yes, if you sign a contract, you sign a contract. It's obvious that you know zip about contract negotiation or law. Unless there is a clause stipulating the terms of contract termination, you can not sign someone and then fire them because they didn't live up to your expectations. That's not how the real world works, and in the real world, that would land you in court defending a breach of contract suit.


Hey, "assumer", I'm a "contractor". Any contract is a performance based contract where one thing is traded for another. If one party fails to keep their end of the deal, contract is broken. If you believe that you can't sign someone then fire them for failure to keep their end of the deal, you're sadly mistaken. And THAT'S how the "real" world works. Paper is worth about as much as the paper that it is. 

And speaking of court...was Ball sued? 



> So unless those rider's contracts expressly stated that "if they don't win, they don't race", is it illegal to stop paying them for their services.


When illegal? Wrong term. 
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul08.htm

Have a great day! :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> In competition?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There you go.

And I hate to tell you in racing, contracts do not state "you will win XX races otherwise you will be fired." Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, despite what you wish.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> There you go.
> 
> And I hate to tell you in racing, contracts do not state "you will win XX races otherwise you will be fired." Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, despite what you wish.


So, did Creed sue Ball if he was in the right?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> So, did Creed sue Ball if he was in the right?


See Floyd Landis. 

How much money should Creed shell out to get a pittance from Ball?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> See Floyd Landis.
> 
> How much money should Creed shell out to get a pittance from Ball?


I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't he be entitled to lawyers fees if he wins?
[+, if it's an open and shut case, $15. and a 6pm small claims court would decide that without a problem]

Oh, I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.
Am I right then to assume that the answer is "no"?


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> So, any opinion on the actual substance of the interview?
> 
> His allegations at how the UCI screwed him (and the team)?
> 
> ...


My opinion, of both interview substance and allegations against UCI, is that I don't know the specifics of UCI's reasons for denying licenses. Don't know if those are published anywhere, and I have not cared enough to look. Therefore, my opinion is that Ball stated his opinion. Interestingly, the interview does not address those specifics either. Unlike my lack of interest in digging into UCI's rationale, I would expect a genuine interviewer to try to do that homework. No evidence of such homework. 

I'm one of those, by the way, who doesn't think this has anything to do with Landis or other riders with past doping records; Landis rode last year for Ouch/Maxxis (sorry, don't remember the precise team name), and to best of my knowledge they, as well as any number of teams with riders who have served doping suspensions, were professionally licensed. Same this year.

And yes, RR did well in several races. Good for the riders, good for the team. I admire that effort and success. Does not mean Ball knows how to maneuver within the system, broken as it may well be, and keep his team involved in racing at that level. Interesting that other teams with both UCI licensure issues and race wins (Astana, and others) seem to have figured that last part out.

My criticism of this "interview" isn't about what Ball says about UCI, it's that questions invited his critique of UCI without in any way challenging that critique. Once Ball seemed to have had his say about UCI and team finances, and once he'd complimented Mancebo in a way crassly demeaning to Mancebo's wife (about which I'm sure she is REALLY pleased), let's turn to RR bikes and where people can buy them. Thus my impression of "infomercial".


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

this thread is hilarious!


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

weltyed said:


> this thread is hilarious!


You could tell it's raining, I can't ride and I'm bored. :lol:

:thumbsup:


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

He doesn't have a license, or race results. The anti-establishment ethos hasn't worked out so well.

If Cipo was still riding though...


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

Wow, 2ndGen, you keep asking why, why, why? I thought the answer was very obvious & well explained by others.

As everyone has stated, the UCI has strict rules & guidelines for a fair & ethical team organization. If you look historically at teams that were in violation & what they had to do to retain their Pro tour status, you will have a clear indication of what is involved.

Proof: Team Telecom became Columbia HTC after many riders were caught in Operation Puerto with evidence of organized blood doping, HGH, EPO, steroids etc. In order for the team to exist they hired new management with a mandate for transparency. New riders were brought on to replace the implicated. Essentially they cleaned house. Gone are riders like Jan Ullrich & Oscar Sevilla & directors Rudy Pevenage.

If you followed the history of RR carefully, you will have known that this was not the first time that RR tried to apply for Pro Continental license. Because Ball is a dictator that calls all the shots, they applied for the wrong license previously. Frankie Andreau who joined the team on the ground floor as the director has claimed as much about Ball. Andreau quit the team because he was powerless. A figurehead. 

Same thing with Cippolini. He was suppose to be their director/rider. That relationship didn't last either. Ball hires all these people who are experts in their areas but he won't let them do their job. Andreau or Cipo would have been great at helping the team try to obtain their Pro Con license. These are 2 individuals with highly respected resumes.

Instead Ball goes out & hires Rudy Pevenage as the new director of the team in hopes of landing the Pro Con license. Pevenage as a director is just about the stupidest choice ever if you want to guarantee failure. The police in Germany have uncovered all the SMS messages between him & Ullrich & the infamous Dr. Fuentes at the center of Puerto. Because Ullrich paid a huge fine & retired from the sport, he was able to avoid prosecution. 

How big of a bonehead can Ball be??? Only his ego is bigger. He thinks that because he has money, he can do anything he wants. And when he doesn't get his way, its because people are out to get him??? To the UCI's eyes, doesn't it appear that Ball is resurrecting the Telecom of old???

There were rumours of Ullrich coming out of retirement. Perhaps to join RR?? Its not known, but Ullrich denied the rumours about coming out of retirement. I've said this before. I admire Ball for the vision that he had but his execution of it leaves a bitter taste. These alone are clear enough grounds for the UCI to deny Ball's team entry. Accept it.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

mendo said:


> He doesn't have a license, or race results. The anti-establishment ethos hasn't worked out so well.
> 
> If Cipo was still riding though...


Catch 22 ain't it?

He's proven to have a competitive team. 
That's all that should matter. 
That and him following the same rules everybody else does.
From what I've read, he hasn't violated any of their rules. 
To the contrary, they're the ones who keep moving the goal posts.

Honest question: 
Who "wouldn't" want to see Rock Racing up against Europe's best? 
Who "wouldn't" want to see what these guys could do if given the chance?

UCI hasn't said anything to justify their decision and what bit they did put out simply didn't jive with what actually "was". 

Rock Racing isn't allowed to race because of Michael Ball. 
He doesn't control his getting or not getting a license.
They do. The UCI denied them that license. Period. And for what? 

I'm still waiting for an answer to that one based on hard facts and not conjecture. 

The team itself loses and I think the sport loses. 

Whoever wants a homogeneous group of riders is pretty much like those who didn't want 
to integrate baseball (not making any reference to race here, but social class of people). 

I wouldn't be surprised if this had the opposite effect that the UCI expects 
and a chant of "let them race, let them race" was to rise up from fans and non-fans alike. 

Honestly, I used to think roadies were [email protected]$. 
That's because I didn't know anything about RBing. 
Then this team really drew me in to the sport and found out that RBing is tough as hell. 
And I fell in deep unadulterated love with it, but I don't feel that it needs to be protected
from the likes of a team like RR...to the contrary, it needs much more diversity. 

What are they afraid of? Doping? Pah-leeze! They'd probably have to wipe out half of the pros if the were worried about that. Regardless of the sport, doping is/was part of the sport until it became illegal or frowned upon. It's like alcohol and prohibition. However, I am in no way favoring performance enhancing drugs (other than pain killers for legitimate injuries). 

Pardon this particular rant Mendo. Just decided to post at least "one" serious post here.  

F it...let them race! Let's see what happens! If those [email protected] are too soft to deal with it (the UCI), F'em. But to me, they are acting like little "female dogs" right now; elitist, snobbish pieces of crapola. 

Do I think that they'd miraculously conquer the Pro World? No. But I think that they'd finish strong (maybe even top 10). And that to me would be redemption for those guys who pour their hearts out on that team. 

And for those who like the riders, but hate the boss, let's face it, 
for many of them, they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the boss. 

If they are clean, let them race. I'm sure there are dirty guys riding right now in the UCI. 

They allow fans and complete strangers to run next to riders during pro events & races, 
but stop pro-level riders from riding because of their boss?

UCI..


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

gamara said:


> Wow, 2ndGen, you keep asking why, why, why? I thought the answer was very obvious & well explained by others.


G, I've seen opinions, but no official links or anything. 



> As everyone has stated, the UCI has strict rules & guidelines for a fair & ethical team organization. If you look historically at teams that were in violation & what they had to do to retain their Pro tour status, you will have a clear indication of what is involved.


Fair enough. But RR has never been a UCI licensed team, right? 
And had they done anything that justified them not being licensed by the UCI? 
Is it "fair" that they are not allowed to race without any valid reason? 

I'm in no way saying that they should be allowed to race because the UCI makes up the rules and I understand it, but I'd like to know what the reason was (not Michael Ball isn't liked by every single last person on the face of the earth or Michael Ball isn't pleasant enough, or Michael Ball doesn't run a team like an experienced team owner, etc...). 

One actual citeable reference would be great (not generalized opinions). 




> Proof: Team Telecom became Columbia HTC after many riders were caught in Operation Puerto with evidence of organized blood doping, HGH, EPO, steroids etc. In order for the team to exist they hired new management with a mandate for transparency. New riders were brought on to replace the implicated. Essentially they cleaned house. Gone are riders like Jan Ullrich & Oscar Sevilla & directors Rudy Pevenage.


Thank you for that (I love it when someone actually responds with examples). 

Was Rock Racing that bad? If not then, if Columbia is allowed to have a license, 
why deny RR a license? 







> If you followed the history of RR carefully, you will have known that this was not the first time that RR tried to apply for Pro Continental license. Because Ball is a dictator that calls all the shots, they applied for the wrong license previously. Frankie Andreau who joined the team on the ground floor as the director has claimed as much about Ball. Andreau quit the team because he was powerless. A figurehead.


Ok, but they didn't apply for the wrong license this time, right?
From what Ball says, they applied for the right license and met the requirements for that license, 
but the UCI insisted that they were mis-categorized on purpose by the UCI. 

If this is true, this is pure not ethical on the part of the UCI as opposed to Ball's obvious error the first time. 





> Same thing with Cippolini. He was suppose to be their director/rider. That relationship didn't last either. Ball hires all these people who are experts in their areas but he won't let them do their job. Andreau or Cipo would have been great at helping the team try to obtain their Pro Con license. These are 2 individuals with highly respected resumes.


Again, I can't defend his treating his team like a business. I know the "type"...micro-managers. I understand that. But, he is the one paying the salaries and he was the one who took the chance on a group of misfits and actually put a good team together. 

They didn't have that faith, so maybe, just maybe, things should be done his way until one of two things happens;
A) they fail miserably despite all of the proven talent they have (at which point Ball basically can't cry anymore) or 
B) they succeed (which I'm sure the UCI doesn't want to see him do) 

But not letting him race because he runs his team in an unorthodox manner is weak. 







> Instead Ball goes out & hires Rudy Pevenage as the new director of the team in hopes of landing the Pro Con license. Pevenage as a director is just about the stupidest choice ever if you want to guarantee failure. The police in Germany have uncovered all the SMS messages between him & Ullrich & the infamous Dr. Fuentes at the center of Puerto. Because Ullrich paid a huge fine & retired from the sport, he was able to avoid prosecution.


:lol: Great point there G, but when you think about it, doesn't Pevenage fit the roster just fine? Look at the actual riders! :lol:







> How big of a bonehead can Ball be??? Only his ego is bigger. He thinks that because he has money, he can do anything he wants.


No, he's just a 10%er. He believes that he can do anything he puts his mind to because he's done it already (with his business). He's applying that to cycling and money can't overcome the obstacles he has in his way now. He knows his money has no power. 

He probably naively believed that if he put together a team of riders who were once dirty that turned out to stay clean and if they performed well, they'd be allowed another shot at racing. He just didn't know the extent to the snobbery of the UCI. 







> And when he doesn't get his way, its because people are out to get him??? To the UCI's eyes, doesn't it appear that Ball is resurrecting the Telecom of old???


G, I look forward to the the UCI's explanation of why they denied RR a license
(that's "if" they ever give us cycling peasants a reason at all). 

If they don't come up with a valid reason, then Ball is right. 
Up until now, what have they put forward? Nothing. 
So Ball can keep crowing until they shut him up.
Their silence doesn't make me wonder...
...it makes me believe Ball more. 






> There were rumours of Ullrich coming out of retirement. Perhaps to join RR?? Its not known, but Ullrich denied the rumours about coming out of retirement. I've said this before. I admire Ball for the vision that he had but his execution of it leaves a bitter taste. These alone are clear enough grounds for the UCI to deny Ball's team entry. Accept it.


I respect your opinion, but disagree with it. 
They allow teams that knowingly had dopers. 
They allowed them to get around the system.
And RR is worse than them "how"? 

And his vision wouldn't have come to fruition had it not been for his particular execution. 
Anybody can say what they want, but the results speak for themselves...an impressive 
record.
And despite all the romance and politics of the sport, at the end of the day, it's not how one plays the game, but that they win. 

Lance Armstrong is Lance Armstrong not because he "almost" won 7 Yellows, but because he "did" win 7 Yellows. 
Had he come in 2nd place those 7 times, he'd just be considered courageous. 
But he didn't go 99% of the way, he went allllllllllllllllllll the way and that makes a world of difference. 

Rock Racing wins period. 

There are UCI teams (according to what's posted here) who've done worse than Ball has. 
They are allowed to race. Double standard if you ask me. 

Anyway, I do appreciate your post G.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> F it...let them race! Let's see what happens! If those [email protected] are too soft to deal with it (the UCI), F'em. But to me, they are acting like little "female dogs" right now; elitist, snobbish pieces of crapola.


Nobody is chanting "let them race" except you. Nobody cares except you.

And the sentence I quoted is exactly the reason that RR is irrelevant and annoying to the cycling world at large: you're acting like a spoiled teen aged brat with a pierced lip, black eye shadow and nail polish, cutting themselves in their room while listening to Marilyn Manson.

Grow up and act like an adult. If Ball did the same, he'd be treated as such.

Edit:

And since you say Rock Racing wins period:



> Rock Racing brought in 10 victories last season, including the first stage of the Tour of California. It went through a number of changes over the year, hiring controversial sport director Rudy Pevenage, and releasing several riders for financial reasons. Several riders were shuffled back and forth between the pro team and the amateur squad.


 - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/roc...d-by-lack-of-professional-continental-licence

And let's see what the best teams were doing:


> For the second year running, the First Endurance sponsored Columbia-HTC men’s squad has completed the road-racing season with more wins than any ProTour team. Starting with Mick Rogers’ [AUS] victory in the Australian National Time Trial Championships on January 8th and ending with Marco Pinotti’s [ITA] first place in the Citta di Stressa time trial in Italy on October 18th, Columbia-HTC racked up 86 victories by 15 different riders in the 2009 season, one more victory than in 2008.


 - http://blog.firstendurance.com/2009...highest-number-of-wins-for-2nd-straight-year/

That's right. Precious Rock Racing had 10 victories. Columbia had 86. Nearly 9 times the victories. So, in all honesty, they really don't just "win, period."

Don't sweat it. Rock Racing will continue to be a three ring circus at the amateur level.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

Wow, this is hilarious. Ok Mr. Ball you can come out now, doth protest too much. Clearly no amount of proof or evidence is sufficient for 2ndGen. For the record, RR was a UCI Continental sanctioned team. Do you even know what the UCI is?? Professional cycling is a business & the UCI are in charge of overseeing it. You keep saying that you can't blame Ball for running his team like his business. Well the UCI does run itself as a business.

How does it look to the UCI the first time around when you wanted to apply for Pro Continental license but instead you applied for Continental license by mistake???? And yet you claim to be a $$$multi-million business empire but you can't even get your s#@t together for a proper business plan? That was 2 years ago. In business, first impressions could be your last impression. RR blew it then. How could it be snobbery if the UCI still granted RR a Continental license anyway for the last 2 yrs??

Now lets not even talk about the riders. Ball goes out & hires Pevenage last yr. The UCI has been after Manolo Saiz, former manager & DS of ONCE, as well as Pevenage from evidence obtained from the raids of Dr Fuentes office. However because Puerto has been effectively shut down by the Spanish courts & because of ineffective international laws, they've managed to fall through the cracks. 

Its one thing to claim hypocrisy from the UCI about letting dopers to continue riding while RR is being punished for hiring riders that have done their time. Its another thing to hire Pevenage, a known doping facilitator that the UCI is still after, to be the manager & DS of a team. I thought that I made this very clear in my OP. I don't know how you can even compare Columbia HTC to RR. 

As a business, the UCI has only so many positions available for Pro Tour teams & Pro Continental teams. They receive more applications than the number of places available. Last year Ag2R lost their Pro Tour license. Why??? Because they didn't get enough racing results they were demoted to Pro Continental. Do you even understand the whole UCI point merit system?? As another poster mentioned, how great is RR's 10 victories??

Its one thing to start an intelligent thread for discussion & its another thing entirely when you start multiple threads on the same subject for propaganda purposes. I'm finished, this is no longer amusing.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?
> 
> Why didn't he pay Creed (if he didn't)?
> 
> ...


Ball's answer to all the above-"It's a world conspiracy against me. It's the other guy's fault." 
His game of musical chairs is amusing, especially how he redefines the "core group" as anyone currently desperate enough to ride for him.
He went into it with blinders on, ignoring the facts of big time racing and especially racing under the rules, guidelines, and red tape of the UCI. Other teams who want to participate seem to be able to make the effort to file paperwork, execute effective communication, choose riders wisely, lead by example, create and enforce clear rules, etc. 
So Ball pissed away a lot of money, his and other peoples, trying to sell them on the idea that he could run a professional outfit. Rock Racing was the XFL of cycling. Now we'll see if he's even capable of running an amateur outfit.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Nobody is chanting "let them race" except you. Nobody cares except you.
> 
> And the sentence I quoted is exactly the reason that RR is irrelevant and annoying to the cycling world at large: you're acting like a spoiled teen aged brat with a pierced lip, black eye shadow and nail polish, cutting themselves in their room while listening to Marilyn Manson.
> 
> Grow up and act like an adult. If Ball did the same, he'd be treated as such.


Hmmm...you hurl personal insults and "I'm" the one acting childish?  

Ok...












Edit:



> And since you say Rock Racing wins period:
> 
> - https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ro...d-by-lack-of-professional-continental-licence
> 
> ...


Which team had more access to more races? 
How does that work out percentage-wise? 
Show me those numbers. 












*Isn't Columbia the team that was slammed by the UCI for doping their racers? 

And this is the team that you laud?

Amazing...dopers are praised. 

A clean team is punished for "how" they look? *
















> Don't sweat it. Rock Racing will continue to be a three ring circus at the amateur level.












And they'll continue to stand on podiums for all the insults.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Ball's answer to all the above-"It's a world conspiracy against me. It's the other guy's fault."
> His game of musical chairs is amusing, especially how he redefines the "core group" as anyone currently desperate enough to ride for him.
> He went into it with blinders on, ignoring the facts of big time racing and especially racing under the rules, guidelines, and red tape of the UCI. Other teams who want to participate seem to be able to make the effort to file paperwork, execute effective communication, choose riders wisely, lead by example, create and enforce clear rules, etc.
> So Ball pissed away a lot of money, his and other peoples, trying to sell them on the idea that he could run a professional outfit. Rock Racing was the XFL of cycling. Now we'll see if he's even capable of running an amateur outfit.


Ok, but...

But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?

Why didn't he pay Creed (if he didn't)?

And, why did he treat Creed and Baldwin like crap (if he did)?

Besides "their side" of the story, is there any proof?

Ball getting sued?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

> Wow, this is hilarious. Ok Mr. Ball you can come out now, doth protest too much. Clearly no amount of proof or evidence is sufficient for 2ndGen.


What "proof"?

Have you posted one "official" UCI link stating why RR was denied a license or have you quoted one UCI official? 














> For the record, RR was a UCI Continental sanctioned team. Do you even know what the UCI is?? Professional cycling is a business & the UCI are in charge of overseeing it. You keep saying that you can't blame Ball for running his team like his business. Well the UCI does run itself as a business.


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

So they werrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre licensed by them and now aren't? 
















> How does it look to the UCI the first time around when you wanted to apply for Pro Continental license but instead you applied for Continental license by mistake????


I don't know. 







> And yet you claim to be a $$$multi-million business empire but you can't even get your s#@t together for a proper business plan?


There are some links here proving what he is worth financially.

As for his cycling team "business plan", I'm the one saying that that is where he 
is messing up and you are saying that he is supposed to run it like a business?

Am I understanding you correctly? 





> That was 2 years ago. In business, first impressions could be your last impression. RR blew it then. How could it be snobbery if the UCI still granted RR a Continental license anyway for the last 2 yrs??


Blew what? Did they win races that year? Did their team & enterprise continue to grow? 

As for how could it be snobbery, you tell me why THIS YEAR they were denied a UCI license? Doping? Improper paperwork? Which is it? And please, post evidence (not your conjecture). 





> Now lets not even talk about the riders. Ball goes out & hires Pevenage last yr. The UCI has been after Manolo Saiz, former manager & DS of ONCE, as well as Pevenage from evidence obtained from the raids of Dr Fuentes office. However because Puerto has been effectively shut down by the Spanish courts & because of ineffective international laws, they've managed to fall through the cracks.


And is this why RR was denied a license by the UCI?







> Its one thing to claim hypocrisy from the UCI about letting dopers to continue riding while RR is being punished for hiring riders that have done their time. Its another thing to hire Pevenage, a known doping facilitator that the UCI is still after, to be the manager & DS of a team. I thought that I made this very clear in my OP. I don't know how you can even compare Columbia HTC to RR.


:lol: You're right...one is one thing and the other is another thing. 

How could I ever confuse actual dopers that are allowed to race vs a clean team that is denied without a public reason...  








> As a business, the UCI has only so many positions available for Pro Tour teams & Pro Continental teams. They receive more applications than the number of places available. Last year Ag2R lost their Pro Tour license. Why??? Because they didn't get enough racing results they were demoted to Pro Continental. Do you even understand the whole UCI point merit system?? As another poster mentioned, how great is RR's 10 victories??


Wow, that's great. You're listing "official" reasons for other teams, but not the reason that's officially stated for RR?  







> Its one thing to start an intelligent thread for discussion & its another thing entirely when you start multiple threads on the same subject for propaganda purposes. I'm finished, this is no longer amusing.


Doubt it...










Peace out.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Am I the only one who noticed this? 

First you say...


gamara said:


> Wow, this is hilarious.


Then you say...


> I'm finished, this is no longer amusing.


Niccccce! :thumbsup:


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?
> 
> Why didn't he pay Creed (if he didn't)?
> 
> ...



Yes there is proof, and do you really expect someone who makes under 30k a year to sue someone that can hire lots of lawyers and eat up court time and costs.

The whole interview is Balls bullshit spin that he always does. He wasn't running it like upfront Biz he was doing everything he could to run it like a shift back door operation, not honoring contracts misleading people attempting to bend the rules that protect the riders. Go do some reserch and take a look at his past he has quite the rep of employee abuse and stuff like use sweat shops to make his clothes then not paying them. 

Hes been sued pleanty btw out side cycling.

Glad hes out of the sport due to the way he treats people.

Was the idea of a rebel team sort neat marketing wise? YES! Too bad his way of doing it sucked.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

32and3cross said:


> Yes there is proof, and do you really expect someone who makes under 30k a year to sue someone that can hire lots of lawyers and eat up court time and costs.


Again, isn't anybody who sues someone entitled to their attorney's fees being covered either by the party that is sued or doesn't the attorney representing the plaintiff get a percentage (usually 1/3)? 

And where is the proof (besides a "yes")? 






> The whole interview is Balls bullshit spin that he always does. He wasn't running it like upfront Biz *he was doing everything he could to run it like a shift back door operation*, not honoring contracts misleading people attempting to bend the rules that protect the riders. Go do some reserch and take a look at his past he has quite the rep of employee abuse and stuff like use sweat shops to make his clothes then not paying them.


In other words, he failed on purpose? 

That seems the talking point here...check out his past (meaning, his non-cycling related past) instead of posting actual evidence. Still, cycling-wise, I haven't been able to find anything about him being sued. 

Do you know of any instances since you know so much (not asked sarcastically, but seriously)? 





> Hes been sued pleanty btw out side cycling.


Again, another non-cycling related talking point.
I can't even begin to discuss that. 
But has he been sued for his cycling enterprise? 
Let's stay on topic here. 





> Glad hes out of the sport due to the way he treats people.


Guess you don't have to worry about him treating you bad now. :lol:





> Was the idea of a rebel team sort neat marketing wise? YES! Too bad his way of doing it sucked.


Ranking in the top 5 statewide...sucked? :skep:
From nothing to the top 5 in a couple of years. 
I'd call that pretty darn good. 

BTW...do you know why the UCI didn't give him a license?

Have an official link I can check out?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Look, I'm sure a ton of you Rock Racing Haters (RRH's) are having a frustrating 
time locating any official reason for the UCI's decision to deny RR a license. 

Fine, I understand. But let's try to stay on topic here instead of bringing up the time 
that Michael Ball pushed some kid in kindergarten. Let's stick to cycling related talk. 

All I want is the actual reason (aka official reason) that they UCI denied RR a license.

An official link would be great or even a quote from a UCI Official from a reputable source would be helpful.

Thanks and good luck on your hunt!

:thumbsup:


Matter of fact, let me throw you RRH's a bone here...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/roc...d-by-lack-of-professional-continental-licence

*Still no comments from UCI or team management*
The UCI did not comment on the grounds for the decision last week, with the official statement simply stating that the 
"_the Management Committee rejected the registration of the US team Rock Racing_."


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

2ndGen

You know will fulling refusing to look up all the evidence doesn't make you right, and no I would go find a bunch of links for you I have other things to do.

Im not a Micheal Ball hater - he just ran a **** team and used up all his chances - not paying your riders or your bank gareenties is enough to get the UCI to not issues you a licence - Something Ball has done over and over.

He if you like him Great! I hear he swings both ways so maybe you can get to know him better.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

32and3cross said:


> 2ndGen
> 
> You know will fulling refusing to look up all the evidence doesn't make you right, and no I would go find a bunch of links for you I have other things to do.


With all due respect 32, I've seen people's opinions, but even the UCI's public statement doesn't state a reason. 





> He if you like him Great! I hear he swings both ways so maybe you can get to know him better.


Are you insinuating a sexual relationship of some sort? 
Inappropriate talk in my opinion here. 
Uncalled for.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> *Isn't Columbia the team that was slammed by the UCI for doping their racers?
> 
> And this is the team that you laud?
> 
> ...


No, kiddo. HTC-Columbia (as they are now called) is NOT a team slammed by the UCI. That was T-Mobile, a team which previously held the UCI Protour license that is now issued to HTC. HTC (which was, at the time High Road) was gutted and re-built from the ground up with new staff, physicians, DSs, riders, mechanics, soigneurs, etc. They instituted an internal anti-doping control to ensure a clean team and catch anyone who decided to dope outside the team's knowledge.

It's amazing you think Rock was a clean team. I guess that thing with Tyler Hamilton was just another case of a long lost twin, right?

Anyway, you're too thick to get it, but Rock is being punished for not being smart enough to follow the UCIs guidelines and rules, and there is nobody to blame but the head of the outfit, Michael Ball, who is unable to follow those rules.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> No, kiddo. HTC-Columbia (as they are now called) is NOT a team slammed by the UCI. That was T-Mobile, a team which previously held the UCI Protour license that is now issued to HTC. HTC (which was, at the time High Road) was gutted and re-built from the ground up with new staff, physicians, DSs, riders, mechanics, soigneurs, etc. They instituted an internal anti-doping control to ensure a clean team and catch anyone who decided to dope outside the team's knowledge.


I'm confused. I thought someone posted here that the current Columbia team (if I got the right information or the right team) is a _new team_ name for a team that was busted in a doping scandal. I'll look back through the thread and see which Columbia team is actually the doping team that was re-badged. 





> It's amazing you think Rock was a clean team. I guess that thing with Tyler Hamilton was just another case of a long lost twin, right?


I was very aware of that when I typed what I typed, but was Hamilton's use part of RR's demand of him or was it his own personal issue having nothing to do with RR (good luck to you Ty in getting better)? 

Was it the team? Or an individual? Are all teams that have individuals who have these issues guilty as a team? 





> Anyway, you're too thick to get it, but Rock is being punished for not being smart enough to follow the UCIs guidelines and rules, and there is nobody to blame but the head of the outfit, Michael Ball, who is unable to follow those rules.


And here we have another personal opinion along with an insult with no citeable link 
or direct evidence to answer the actual topic of this thread (and I'm the thick one?). 

The RRH's silence on providing evidence speaks volumes the Ball just might be right...it might just be politics. 

But the day is early...let's see if someone can actually find some UCI related proof.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

2ndGen said:


> I'm confused. I thought someone posted here that the current Columbia team (if I got the right information or the right team) is a new team name for a team that was busted in a doping scandal. I'll look back through the thread and see which Columbia team is actually the doping team that was re-badged.


Ahhh...here it is: 
"Proof: Team Telecom became Columbia HTC after many riders were caught in Operation Puerto with evidence of organized blood doping, 
HGH, EPO, steroids etc. In order for the team to exist they hired new management with a mandate for transparency."

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2673871&postcount=28


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> With all due respect 32, I've seen people's opinions, but even the UCI's public statement doesn't state a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are new to cycling so you will not understand this:

The UCI is GOD (underlined for emphasis) in terms of the professional racing world. I don't care WHO you are, you treat them with the utmost respect. Floyd Landis did not, and look where it got him. Ball did not, and look where it got him.

Now, the UCI didn't issue an official reason. Guess what: THEY DON'T NEED TO! They determined that Rock Racing, as a team and organization, did not fulfill the requirements to be issued a Professional Continental license (they HAD been riding under a continental license the past two seasons.) Was it the bank guarantee? Was it hiring a DS who is pretty much blacklisted by the UCI to work with a bunch of "reformed" dopers? Was it the fact that he didn't have the roster of riders for a pro continental team? None of us knows for sure, but here's the thing: YOU don't know either. Yet you automatically assume that everything was right and the UCI "snobbery" as you so like to put it, is responsible.

Why did they not receive a continental license then? Well, judging by the timelines at play here, the deadline for continental application had probably passed, and Ball likely burned his bridges in the Pro Cont license fiasco anyway. Thus, he would probably not get leeway to be issued a Cont license outside of the application deadlines.

Now, to be perfectly frank, if you would pull your head out of your ass and look at the situation objectively, you would see that ANY team that has such ridiculous problems would face the same issue. Astana failed to pay their riders last season, and this year the UCI demanded a significantly higher bank guarantee and other contractual clauses in order to re-issue their ProTour license. They had to have contractual obligation from the teams backers and funding partners in addition to the typical required paperwork. Think about that for a second: the team of a 4 time Grand Tour winner, 2 time (and reigning) Tour de France winner was ALMOST NOT ISSUED A UCI LICENSE BECAUSE OF APPLICATION AND TEAM MANAGEMENT ISSUES. That's correct, even with perhaps the most talented rider in the world as leverage (and believe me, that is HUGE leverage that Rock Racing does not even come close to having) the UCI was willing to throw them to the wolves if they didn't follow the rules. Now what about Rock Racing?

The difference between Rock Racing and any other team that has trouble with UCI guidelines is that every other team knows how to play by the rules, shut their holes and say "yes sir, no sir, absolutely sir" when asked. Ball flaps his gums and ends up pissing off the powers that be, and then expects leeway when something goes wrong. Pfft, you've got to be kidding me. Neither he no his team is more than a bug on the UCI windshield. He is so utterly inconsequential in the scheme of professional cycling, and he loves to mouth off and piss off those that see him as inconsequential. And when he reaps what he has sown by pissing off the UCI, he (as he always does) passes the buck, claims that everyone else is at fault, and he is a victim.

I think Pat McQuaid said it best: "Bulls**t."


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Ahhh...here it is:
> "Proof: Team Telecom became Columbia HTC after many riders were caught in Operation Puerto with evidence of organized blood doping,
> HGH, EPO, steroids etc. In order for the team to exist they hired new management with a mandate for transparency."
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2673871&postcount=28


They "became" in that they utilize the same team owner (Bob Stapleton) and the same UCI ProTour license. The ProTour license is held by High Road Sports, which is a management company owned primarily by Bob Stapleton. After the decision of Deutsche Telekom AG to end it's sponsorship of T-Mobile following Patrick Sinkewitz's TdF positive for testosterone (and subsequent testimony of the organized doping practices of T-Mobile, including the Puerto group) the team became known as Team High Road, and it's registration was moved from Germany to the United States. 

The "team", including management, is entirely different from the T-Mobile team of old. There was a wholesale housecleaning of the vast majority of the riders (mostly anyone who followed the old rules of the peloton, and believed in the Omerta) and the support staff. New management was hired with Stapleton taking a VERY active role in the day to day management and development of the team. He immediately instituted a program similar to the UCI biological passport to track rider values and prevent the problems that had been rampant with old T-Mobile, and he began to put his trust in young riders such as Cavendish (and he continues to do so today.)

So, yes, in a way HTC Columbia is born out of the remains of T-Mobile. Is it the same team? Not even close, it's not even registered in the same country. Does it technically hold the same UCI Protour license? Yep. 

Of course, since you're so new to pro cycling, you wouldn't understand how this works, now would you?

(edited to add a bit more background)


----------



## cycledog81 (Jan 8, 2008)

2ndGen said:


> Ok, but...
> 
> But, but, but...any opinion on what he said in the interview?
> 
> ...


Not suing someone is not a means of disproving that Ball screwed these guys.
Creed, Baldwin and several others decided not to sue and simply move on to new teams.
I've talked to both numerous times and they both gave concrete details of what their contracts called for including prize money splits and details as to what is owed to them that will never be paid. These are facts, black and white and having known these two since they were juniors and they are stand up guys, I have no reason to to disbelive them,
They want to spend their energy on new professional teams and their careers. Ball is an amateur in the truest since when it comes to cycling. Bottom line there is proof of his disregard for rules and contracts. Ball needs to go away, leave cycling and spread his pile of BS elsewhere.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> They "became" in that they utilize the same team owner (Bob Stapleton) and the same UCI ProTour license.
> 
> The "team", including management, is entirely different from the T-Mobile team of old.
> 
> Of course, since you're so new to pro cycling, you wouldn't understand how this works, now would you?


New to pro cycling? I don't race. I just realllllly like RR's kits and their damn the snobs attitudes. I really don't care about the politics of racing or the personal lives of the owners...just the results and the competition. 

Ok, so you parse owners when it's convenient for the sake of your argument. 
With Bob, it's ok to just switch management and name and keep the owner in charge of it all?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

cycledog81 said:


> Not suing someone is not a means of disproving that Ball screwed these guys.


It proves that he wasn't sued. 






> Creed, Baldwin and several others decided not to sue and simply move on to new teams.


Then if what was alleged is true, it seems to matter more to some RRH's here than to the actual riders involved. Instead of crying about it, they should've been men and taken action (that is, "if" what was alleged is true). 






> I've talked to both numerous times and they both gave concrete details of what their contracts called for including prize money splits and details as to what is owed to them that will never be paid. These are facts, black and white and having known these two since they were juniors and they are stand up guys, I have no reason to to disbelive them,


Ok. 




> They want to spend their energy on new professional teams and their careers. Ball is an amateur in the truest since when it comes to cycling. Bottom line there is proof of his disregard for rules and contracts. Ball needs to go away, leave cycling and spread his pile of BS elsewhere.


Has the UC ever fined Ball for anything for his violating their rules while he held a license by them?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> New to pro cycling? I don't race. I just realllllly like RR's kits and their damn the snobs attitudes. I really don't care about the politics of racing or the personal lives of the owners...just the results and the competition.
> 
> Ok, so you parse owners when it's convenient for the sake of your argument.
> With Bob, it's ok to just switch management and name and keep the owner in charge of it all?


Now, that's the problem with you. You like the kits and the attitude, but don't care about the politics of racing, just the results of the competition.

You don't seem to get that in pro cycling, politics of racing (AKA following the UCI's rules) and results/competition go hand in hand. By complaining about the denial of the license and supporting Ball, you're arguing (wait for it) the POLITICS OF RACING (aka following the UCIs rules).

Ball does not follow the UCIs rules, so neither he nor you have any right to complain about the UCI not allowing them to race. 

Sorry, that's how it is.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> You are new to cycling so you will not understand this:
> 
> The UCI is GOD (underlined for emphasis) in terms of the professional racing world. I don't care WHO you are, you treat them with the utmost respect. Floyd Landis did not, and look where it got him. Ball did not, and look where it got him.


Just like the entity that rules my area of expertise in my trade. 

As for respect, respect should be mutual. Not just a one way street. There are clearly double standards here (team owners that had organized dopers are allowed to re-badge their team and change staff and are allowed to run...a team that never has been guilty of that [which is supposedly the worst thing a professional cycling team can do] is denied a license without reason). 




> Now, the UCI didn't issue an official reason. Guess what: THEY DON'T NEED TO! They determined that Rock Racing, as a team and organization, did not fulfill the requirements to be issued a Professional Continental license (they HAD been riding under a continental license the past two seasons.) Was it the bank guarantee? Was it hiring a DS who is pretty much blacklisted by the UCI to work with a bunch of "reformed" dopers? Was it the fact that he didn't have the roster of riders for a pro continental team?


So until they do actually state a reason, Ball has all the say as to what the reason was. 
And how do you know that they determined determined that Rock Racing, as a team and organization, did not fulfill the requirements to be issued a Professional Continental license? Did they post this somewhere or officially state it or did you come to that assumption on your own by their denying them the license? 



> None of us knows for sure, but here's the thing: YOU don't know either. Yet you automatically assume that everything was right and the UCI "snobbery" as you so like to put it, is responsible.


Of course, that's why I can only go by what the involved parties are saying (not by what is "not" being said as you do). And the only one talking is Ball. So that says what? 

Remember, the UCI hasn't denied Ball's allegations up until this point which by your standards (of going by what is not being said) is hard to defend. 




> Why did they not receive a continental license then? Well, judging by the timelines at play here, the deadline for continental application had probably passed, and Ball likely burned his bridges in the Pro Cont license fiasco anyway. Thus, he would probably not get leeway to be issued a Cont license outside of the application deadlines.


I don't know...not the topic here. And Ball's bridges were burned the moment he started his team. 






> Now, to be perfectly frank, if you would pull your head out of your ass and look at the situation objectively, you would see that ANY team that has such ridiculous problems would face the same issue.


Wow. You're profound. Really intelligent choice of words there. 
Don't be mad. Just discuss. Save the personal insults (if you can). 




> Astana failed to pay their riders last season, and this year the UCI demanded a significantly higher bank guarantee and other contractual clauses in order to re-issue their ProTour license.


And their being alllowed to race? 

Ok, so we have a doping allowing team owner and a team that didn't actually pay their riders allowed, but RR not allowed?

Keep all this edumacation coming...you're adding onto my list of double standards. 

 






> The difference between Rock Racing and any other team that has trouble with UCI guidelines is that every other team knows how to play by the rules, shut their holes and say "yes sir, no sir, absolutely sir" when asked. Ball flaps his gums and ends up pissing off the powers that be, and then expects leeway when something goes wrong. Pfft, you've got to be kidding me. Neither he no his team is more than a bug on the UCI windshield. He is so utterly inconsequential in the scheme of professional cycling, and he loves to mouth off and piss off those that see him as inconsequential. And when he reaps what he has sown by pissing off the UCI, he (as he always does) passes the buck, claims that everyone else is at fault, and he is a victim.


In other words, Ball doesn't take it up the rear and smile and say "thank you sir, might I have another?"

ROCK ON BALL! Even if he doesn't race, he's dieing on his feet rather than living on his knees! 








> I think Pat McQuaid said it best: "Bulls**t."


Oh yeah, McQuaid...he's one to admire...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Just like the entity that rules my area of expertise in my trade.
> As for respect, respect should be mutual. Not just a one way street. There are clearly double standards here (team owners that had organized dopers are allowed to re-badge their team and change staff and are allowed to run...a team that never has been guilty of that [which is supposedly the worst thing a professional cycling team can do] is denied a license without reason).
> 
> 
> ...


Not that you'll read or comprehend any of that, but there it is. 

You're either such a troll, so stubborn or so unable to understand the way the UCI and licensing works (I really suspect you're the former) that this is like talking to a brick wall.

Rock Racing is done in the UCI cycling world, and cycling is better for it.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Not that you'll read or comprehend any of that, but there it is.
> 
> You're either such a troll, so stubborn or so unable to understand the way the UCI and licensing works (I really suspect you're the former) that this is like talking to a brick wall.
> 
> Rock Racing is done in the UCI cycling world, and cycling is better for it.


More insults & no answer to the original topic? 

Ok... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQRfBAzSzo&feature=related


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

The original topic was why were they denied a license.

The answer is because the didn't meet the requirements for a UCI Continental License.

From cyclingnews:


> Rock Racing issued a short statement on Wednesday that said the team - which is rumoured to become Mexican-registered for 2010 - would endeavour to secure their move from Continental to Professional Continental status for next season. "We're obviously very disappointed but are working diligently to satisfy every requirement that is being asked of us. We are committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure we can race next year," read the statement.
> 
> Rock Racing's statement was the first concrete sign that the team had applied for the UCI's second-tier status. Androni Giocattoli had been part of the UCI's provisional list of teams vying for Professional Continental licences released last month.
> 
> ...


They obviously didn't make the requirements and didn't get a license. End of story.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> it seems to matter more to some RRH's here than to the actual riders involved.


Just consider the irony of this statement coming from you when you have over 25 posts on this topic alone.
This thread and Ball himself remind me of the saying, "When all is said and done, more gets said than done."


----------



## cycledog81 (Jan 8, 2008)

2ndGen said:


> It proves that he wasn't sued.
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not being sued,,,must mean I'm a great guy and conducts my buisness with great ethics. MB
> ...


Probably not the UC, but I'm sure the UCI has been aware of his lack of knowing the rules when applying for a license last year when he did not have the mandated age requirements for him team. Simple stupidity year after year isn't something that the UCI has in the rules, but may want to consider as the MB clause.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

cycledog81 said:


> Probably not the UC, but I'm sure the UCI has been aware of his lack of knowing the rules when applying for a license last year when he did not have the mandated age requirements for him team. Simple stupidity year after year isn't something that the UCI has in the rules, but may want to consider as the MB clause.


Typo. I meant UCI. Have they ever fined him for violating any of their rules?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> The original topic was why were they denied a license.
> 
> The answer is because the didn't meet the requirements for a UCI Continental License.
> 
> ...


Link for that information you posted please?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Just consider the irony of this statement coming from you when you have over 25 posts on this topic alone.


Ahhh...we have a "proof-texter" here (parsing quotes and using them out of context!).

Here is where you pulled that fragment of my quote (anybody can see that it doesn't apply to what you allege)...




> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by cycledog81
> > Not suing someone is not a means of disproving that Ball screwed these guys.
> >
> ...









> This thread and Ball himself remind me of the saying, "When all is said and done, more gets said than done."


I have a better one...

"Let the bikes do the talking."

(But the UCI won't allow that "this" year, would they? And we still don't know why.)

:nonod:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/androni-giocattoli-and-rock-racing-react-to-ucis-licence-decision

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rock-racing-officially-denied-pro-license

Interesting read on how Ball treats his riders, and how one had to go to court to recover damages:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiscovitch-wins-rock-racing-court-case

Baden Cooke article on his treatment by Ball:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cooke-to-sue-rock-racing

Interesting that Ball still owes Pevenage money too:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pevenage-confirms-split-from-rock-racing

Confirming the rejection of Pro Cont license, and very brief history of some of it's previous problems:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/roc...d-by-lack-of-professional-continental-licence


That enough reading material for you?



2ndGen said:


> (But the UCI would never allow that, would they?)


Not if you can't figure out how to properly manage and fund a team. Hell, he can't even figure out how to fill out an application properly.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/androni-giocattoli-and-rock-racing-react-to-ucis-licence-decision
> 
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rock-racing-officially-denied-pro-license
> 
> ...


Any of those UCI sites with an official statement as to "why" RR didn't get their license? 
(which is the topic of this particular thread)


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

2ndGen said:


> Any of those UCI sites with an official statement as to "why" RR didn't get their license?
> (which is the topic of this particular thread)


did Ball sue UCI? well then they are probably right


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

den bakker said:


> did Ball sue UCI? well then they are probably right


"Can" he sue them?

"Can" he force them to allow him to race?

Is the UCI a privately owned or publically owned organization?

Did they have a contract?
(I'm sure in Ball's/riders' who didn't get paid, they had contracts, right?")


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

2ndGen said:


> "Can" he sue them?
> 
> "Can" he force them to allow him to race?
> 
> ...


so they don't need a reason then?


----------



## Swish (Jul 31, 2004)

off topic: Cycling was not an elitist sport, on the contrary. The public can talk to the riders, take pictures with them, if anything it is a sport for the 'common man'. You don't need a ticket, which makes it very accessible.

on topic. Cycling has had a bad doping rep unlike any other sport. That is likely part of the reason UCI denied a new licence. There's a fixed number of team licenses and a few other up and coming teams with no iffy track record were much safer choices for the UCI.
Playing the bad boys on the block has inherent risks, Ball underestimated this and got burned.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

den bakker said:


> so they don't need a reason then?


You asked a rhetorical question. 

I asked you sincere questions. 

No answers? 

As for they needing a reason, can't answer that until you answer mine first. 

tick tock


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> You asked a rhetorical question.
> 
> I asked you sincere questions.
> 
> ...


It's the same logic you're using in the idea that his riders must be full of it if they aren't suing him left and right for misconduct.

When it's posed to you, it doesn't sound so rosey does it?

Swish: I didn't mean that it was only for the rich and famous. Bad choice of wording on my part. I was meaning that it has a more gentlemanly set of rules than most sports do, and many rules are unspoken ones.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Swish said:


> off topic: Cycling was not an elitist sport, on the contrary. The public can talk to the riders, take pictures with them, if anything it is a sport for the 'common man'. You don't need a ticket, which makes it very accessible.


There's one thing that freaks me out about cycling...that they allow for riders to be directly exposed to fans on the route. If anybody wanted to hurt a rider, it would be so easy for them to do so and when I see them jumping out in front of riders and running next to them or tapping them on the shoulder, I find it hard to believe how there aren't more accidents. 

That part is a little "too much" access for me. But all that you wrote is way cool. Never saw it that way. 






> on topic. Cycling has had a bad doping rep unlike any other sport. That is likely part of the reason UCI denied a new licence. There's a fixed number of team licenses and a few other up and coming teams with no iffy track record were much safer choices for the UCI.
> Playing the bad boys on the block has inherent risks, Ball underestimated this and got burned.


In other words, they erred on the side of caution and with no actual reason? 

Not cool in my book.

And an apology to all about my screaming about staying on topic here. 
The other thread is where this was supposed to be discussed 
(on the team being denied a license). 
I probably was the one who got off-topic here. 
Again, my bad. 

I would rather have seen the team fail after trying that not being allowed to compete. 
That would've been "sportsmanship". 

Seems like the UCI's head man is just as guilty of being an unlikeable character as Ball is. 
He certainly isn't a poster boy for professional cycling himself. 

But, C'est la vie!


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> It's the same logic you're using in the idea that his riders must be full of it if they aren't suing him left and right for misconduct.
> 
> When it's posed to you, it doesn't sound so rosey does it?


Negatory. 

I never said that his riders must be full of it.I asked a question. Was he sued. Period.
Some here came up with some lame arse excuses as to why legal action wasn't sought. 
If I was owed money like that and I was in the right, I'd sue. 
But there was someone here who spoke out of something neither you or I could do...
...first hand knowledge and experience and I accepted that and that was good enough for me. 
So you're a day late and a dollar short bro. 

Thou assumeth too much.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> "Can" he sue them?
> 
> "Can" he force them to allow him to race?
> 
> ...



Can he sue UCI for denial of a license? Beats me. But then there's his statement that UCI still holds 500K of his money. If UCI is wrongfully holding that, sure he could sue. Interesting in his interview that Ball does not use word "wrongfully" about UCI still having that 500K, or any other word like "wrongfully".

The way I read your posts, 2nd Gen, allegations of breach of contract by riders are without merit because riders have not sued Ball. Your position is that it's riders' responsibility to demonstrate merit of statements made in public interviews. Fair enough. Ball, on the other hand, makes statements against UCI in a similar public interview, and it's your position that Ball is right until UCI demonstrates otherwise. Double standard. Fallacy in logic. Spock would not approve.


----------



## Swish (Jul 31, 2004)

2ndGen said:


> There's one thing that freaks me out about cycling...that they allow for riders to be directly exposed to fans on the route. If anybody wanted to hurt a rider, it would be so easy for them to do so and when I see them jumping out in front of riders and running next to them or tapping them on the shoulder, I find it hard to believe how there aren't more accidents.
> 
> That part is a little "too much" access for me. But all that you wrote is way cool. Never saw it that way.


There's the odd incident, but accessibility has always been the charm of cycling, no irrational worries about possible weirdos, weirdos aren't held back by fences anyway.




> In other words, they erred on the side of caution and with no actual reason?
> 
> Not cool in my book.
> 
> ...


Rock Racing did compete, but had a number of organizational issues, all of them already mentioned in this topic. On top of that they assembled a team of ex 'convicts', avery provocative thing to do, especially in a world where doping is such a touchy subject.

Cycling is like one huge soap opera, there's lot of hidden layers, with rivalries, allegiances, feuds etc, that's what makes it so interesting. It also means that you have to play the organizational part of the team game via lots of ways, both official and unofficial. I'm not talking bribing here, but networking and respecting the old boys club is very important in cycling. Love it or hate it, it just works that way, Ball didn't follow the mores of the cyclingworld and got served.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

LookDave said:


> Can he sue UCI for denial of a license? Beats me. But then there's his statement that UCI still holds 500K of his money. If UCI is wrongfully holding that, sure he could sue. Interesting in his interview that Ball does not use word "wrongfully" about UCI still having that 500K, or any other word like "wrongfully".


Yep. That one got by me. I'd think that there'd be a reasonable amount of time that 
would have to pass before he was to get his funds back after he was denied a license. 



> The way I read your posts, 2nd Gen, allegations of breach of contract by riders are without merit because riders have not sued Ball.


Hey Dave, 

No. Sorry if I gave that impression. It's just that that stuff shouldn't be cried about then there not be any legal action taken. If they aren't going to actually do anything about it, why talk about it? I never implied that their allegations had no merit because they didn't take legal action. I just wonder why they took NO action (at least as far as I've seen). 

Have any of the gone to the UCI and complained about Ball's practices directly?This I don't know. 
But Ball seems to have a manner of management that is not appropriate for the sport. 
I've always acknowledged that as a business owner myself. 








> Your position is that it's riders' responsibility to demonstrate merit of statements made in public interviews. Fair enough. Ball, on the other hand, makes statements against UCI in a similar public interview, and it's your position that Ball is right until UCI demonstrates otherwise. Double standard. Fallacy in logic. Spock would not approve.


Actually, no. That's why I posted the thread...to see if anyone could produce any type of support to contradict him. I personally wanted to know why he was denied a license. 

Ball (as opposed to the riders) actually appealed the decisions against him (if I understood what I read correctly). That shows me that at least he feels he was wronged. I can't say anything about the riders that didn't take any action at all (from what I know) against Ball after they were supposedly wrongfully terminated or not paid, or whatever the deal was. 

All I said about Ball's statements is that the UCI hasn't contradicted him. 
Ball contradicted the riders after they spoke. I dont' see a double standard there.

Is Ball right? I can't answer. All I can say is that the UCI isn't stating why RR was denied and Ball has put forth a reason for his paperwork being misfiled or whatever the problem was and that it was the UCI's error, not his. The UCI hasn't responded. And if they feel that they don't have to, then Ball doesn't deserve to be "not" believed. I'm a firm believe in innocent until proven guilty. 

Again, there was a gent here who stated that he had first hand accounts from a pair of riders not getting paid and I said I have no reason to not believe him judging by the way he responded (reasonably and without passion).

But check this out...supposedly, it's just two riders, right? Astana didn't pay a whole team. 
Yet, they are allowed to ride. Why is Ball held under a higher standard than an already established team that has had their shot? 

The UCI, this "gentlemanly" sport led by a foul mouthed arrogant person allows team owners who were found guilty of being involved with doping provided that he changed staff and the teams name, yet race under the same license?

A person doesn't have to be a dedicated race fan to see that that's a double standard. 
If Ball was bad for cycling, what is a doping team owner and a non-paying championship team for it? Good?

:lol: And I counter your Spock with the way I see how the UCI runs things...Bizarro! :lol:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Swish said:


> There's the odd incident, but accessibility has always been the charm of cycling, no irrational worries about possible weirdos, weirdos aren't held back by fences anyway.


True. I just think it's really dangerous for there to be such free access while they are riding. I think it was the TDF where I found myself thinking...
"Why don't those people get out of the way and let them ride?"

It was like they were cutting _through_ the crowd. 






> Rock Racing did compete, but had a number of organizational issues, all of them already mentioned in this topic. On top of that they assembled a team of ex 'convicts', avery provocative thing to do, especially in a world where doping is such a touchy subject.


But that's where I see the BEAUTY of Rock Racing. Of all their riders, only one fell back (Ty), but the rest proved that they could compete cleanly again. That was the whole point of RR and that's what I loved about them. And after all of that, they (the riders) won't be allowed to ride with the big boys? 

Regardless of Ball's acts/actions/statements, the riders deserved it. Lesser deserving owners/riders (IMO) are allowed to ride. 






> Cycling is like one huge soap opera, there's lot of hidden layers, with rivalries, allegiances, feuds etc, that's what makes it so interesting. It also means that you have to play the organizational part of the team game via lots of ways, both official and unofficial. I'm not talking bribing here, but networking and respecting the old boys club is very important in cycling. Love it or hate it, it just works that way, Ball didn't follow the mores of the cyclingworld and got served.


Got served? He didn't even get a chance to play really. But, the time he had in, 
who can deny that he put together a team of misfits and created something out of nothing? 

What would they have brought to the Pro scene in Europe? I just wanted to see them go all the way. 
If they were dopers or if they had violated any of the UCI's rules, I could understand. But neither was the case. 

If I didn't like RR, I'd LOVE for them to be allowed to race so that they could fall flat on their face. 
But maybe the RRH's don't want them to race either because they "might not" fall flat on their face, 
but place respectfully high in the rankings thus giving Ball some credit for his faith in his team. 

Reminds me of "A Knight's Tale" where a very capable and worthy contestant was not allowed to compete 
because he was supposedly "not" of noble blood, despite the fact that he was a great tournament competitor. 

Also (again) reminds me of Baseball before integration. Or of those city kids who 
weren't allowed "in" a pool at a country club,even though they had a membership.


----------



## cycledog81 (Jan 8, 2008)

2ndGen said:


> Negatory.
> 
> I never said that his riders must be full of it.I asked a question. Was he sued. Period.
> Some here came up with some lame arse excuses as to why legal action wasn't sought.
> ...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

RR in Europe would have been great if only to show up the sketchy organisation Ball was running. The problem is that the only people to really suffer would be riders & back up staff. MB would not suffer anything other than financial loss.

WRT the history of RR, there have been multiple fallouts with Cippolini, Andreu, Creed, Cooke....the questionable hiring of Pevenage, in short far more to be concerned about than any other team I can think of over 25 years of following cycling.

Where do you get the idea that Highroad/HTC Columbia is run by someone who was part of the old Telecom setup? Stapelton was the guy brought in to clean up the mess in the wake of Puerto and has overseen one of the most transparent anti-doping programmes in cycling. MB hired his predecessor who was instrumental in twisting the majority of the mid to late 90's scene.

I suspect that the reason the riders who have been short-changed by Ball have not taken obvious action is that they just want rid of the whole sorry affair and would rather draw a line under it and move on. When you're the small guy up against a corporation it is easy to be buried by their lawyers in time consuming garbage. far better and noble to just walk away with your dignity. MB seems to have a habit of bad mouthing his detractors in the press. Why waste precious effort on him?

So RR - DEAD & BURIED I HOPE!


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

cycledog81 said:


> 2ndGen said:
> 
> 
> > Negatory.
> ...


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> RR in Europe would have been great if only to show up the sketchy organisation Ball was running.


*EXACTLY UB! *

So, why didn't UCI allow them to compete?

They had nothing to lose (except face if RR would've continued to run a clean team that won regularly). 






> WRT the history of RR, there have been multiple fallouts with Cippolini, Andreu, Creed, Cooke....the questionable hiring of Pevenage, in short far more to be concerned about than any other team I can think of over 25 years of following cycling.


More than non-paying Astana or doping Columbia team owner racing now? 

That's "what could've happened" VS "what actually happened". 







> Where do you get the idea that Highroad/HTC Columbia is run by someone who was part of the old Telecom setup? Stapelton was the guy brought in to clean up the mess in the wake of Puerto and has overseen one of the most transparent anti-doping programmes in cycling. MB hired his predecessor who was instrumental in twisting the majority of the mid to late 90's scene.


One of the posts in this thread said they allowed the *same* owner to keep the same license and change the teams name and staff. If that's not true, then Columbia shouldn't have even have been mentioned with a doping team (if they had nothing to do with it). But hey, I didn't bring Columbia up...someone trouncing RR did that. They could answer that better than me. I report, you decide! :lol:





> I suspect that the reason the riders who have been short-changed by Ball have not taken obvious action is that they just want rid of the whole sorry affair and would rather draw a line under it and move on.


Talking about it openly wouldn't accomplish that.






> When you're the small guy up against a corporation it is easy to be buried by their lawyers in time consuming garbage. far better and noble to just walk away with your dignity. MB seems to have a habit of bad mouthing his detractors in the press. Why waste precious effort on him?


That's what local courts are for. Everybody's equal in a local court and guess what, 
if the contract was breached legally, then any judge can decide that. 

And they seem to be wasting precious effort on him...they talked about it. 
But hey, that's all innuendo anyway. 





> So RR - DEAD & BURIED I HOPE!


Did you read the article I posted? 

Resurrected! 

Amateur racing circuit! 

They'll probably place higher than 5th place this year in their category!

Rock on!


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't he be entitled to lawyers fees if he wins?


No, not necessarily. Consider that you may be making other groundless assumptions, too.

The interview really is an infomercial (which isn't itself bad), but you've been stressing the lack of "proof" of any counterclaim, while ignoring the fact that there's no proof for much of what Ball says, either. There is plenty of reason to doubt some of what he says, and confidence or doubt are about as far as we can go as outsiders. Freddy Rodriquez has had a pretty long career for a guy who nobody wants to ride with. The comments about Landis seem pretty rich given the inordinately disproportionate number of misunderstandings that Ball has been involved with.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> They keep everybody's money that they don't allow to race?


That piece is especially BS. A bank guarantee (as required by the UCI and in commerce generally) means that someone is required to obtain evidence of an amount being on deposit with or otherwise available from a bank, to serve some purpose. The UCI doesn't have that money---a bank was required to guarantee to the UCI that RR was good for some amount (I'm not sure what the required minimum for a Pro Conti team is this year, but last year it was considerably less than $500,000 unless the team's budget was on the order of $5,000,000). So even if Ball actually made the deposit and obtained the bank guarantee---and we do know that in 2009 he had the USAC in a difficult position because he continued to ignore their requests to fund the required guarantee when Rock was a Continental team, which would have been a smaller amount---the UCI wouldn't have that money.

No offense, but as a long-time fan of cycling and as an attorney who has been involved with many commercial and employment disputes, you just don't come across like you have much of a basis for, or context about, what you're saying. Of course you can say it, but don't be surprised if people don't bother to respond to it in detail, and don't think that the absence of people spending their time on your arguments means that you're right.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> RR in Europe would have been great if only to show up the sketchy organisation Ball was running. The problem is that the only people to really suffer would be riders & back up staff. MB would not suffer anything other than financial loss.
> 
> WRT the history of RR, there have been multiple fallouts with Cippolini, Andreu, Creed, Cooke....the questionable hiring of Pevenage, in short far more to be concerned about than any other team I can think of over 25 years of following cycling.
> 
> ...


He's referring to Stapleton. Stapleton was a manager at T-Mobile, and transitioned to owner of the team under High Road Sports when Telekom dropped the sponsorship.

This idiot thinks because it's the same license that it's the same team and they're still dirty. He knows less about pro cycling than your garden variety rock.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Undecided said:


> No, not necessarily. Consider that you may be making other groundless assumptions, too.


It's not an assumption if I asked if it was the case now, is it? 
(who's assuming here?)



> The interview really is an infomercial (which isn't itself bad), but you've been stressing the lack of "proof" of any counterclaim, while ignoring the fact that there's no proof for much of what Ball says, either.


No, I've been requesting proof BESIDES Ball's words. Read the thread and you'll see that. 
And, I've never said that what Ball has said is undeniably true...only that it hasn't been denied by the UCI. Which is undeniably true. Whatever assumptions anybody makes from those facts are their own. I don't put thoughts in anybody's heads. Just what I read. They (you) make up their own minds. 







> There is plenty of reason to doubt some of what he says, and confidence or doubt are about as far as we can go as outsiders. Freddy Rodriquez has had a pretty long career for a guy who nobody wants to ride with. The comments about Landis seem pretty rich given the inordinately disproportionate number of misunderstandings that Ball has been involved with.


That's why I asked for some official statement from The UCI for all those who automatically discount Ball's claims. There's a lot of character assassination going on, but no official UCI statement(s) being produced. 

Ball isn't an idiot. He knows that any false statements he makes against an organization that obviously hates him would be grounds for slander. He's not going to say something that'll get him sued. He's used to getting sued. He knows what line to walk and besides, none of what he's alleged is unbelievable or impossible to accept.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Undecided said:


> That piece is especially BS. A bank guarantee (as required by the UCI and in commerce generally) means that someone is required to obtain evidence of an amount being on deposit with or otherwise available from a bank, to serve some purpose. The UCI doesn't have that money---a bank was required to guarantee to the UCI that RR was good for some amount (I'm not sure what the required minimum for a Pro Conti team is this year, but last year it was considerably less than $500,000 unless the team's budget was on the order of $5,000,000). So even if Ball actually made the deposit and obtained the bank guarantee---and we do know that in 2009 he had the USAC in a difficult position because he continued to ignore their requests to fund the required guarantee when Rock was a Continental team, which would have been a smaller amount---the UCI wouldn't have that money.
> 
> No offense, but as a long-time fan of cycling and as an attorney who has been involved with many commercial and employment disputes, you just don't come across like you have much of a basis for, or context about, what you're saying. Of course you can say it, but don't be surprised if people don't bother to respond to it in detail, and don't think that the absence of people spending their time on your arguments means that you're right.


In other words, you're talking about monies being held in escrow? 
Your response is typical of the RRHers...(probably, maybe, etc...)...no certainty. 
Just personal opinion without facts. 

I posted the man's own words (Ball's) and requested what the UCI had to say about this. 

Still, nothing but crickets chirping. 

What am I saying that I don't have a basis for?
You as an attorney should know that if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist. Right? 

To the contrary...some people seem to be obsessed with talking about everything under the sun "except" the actual topic. 
What would that be called in a court during a trial? If someone didn't focus on the matter at hand, 
but brought up all sorts of unrelated incidents to try to convince whoever was doing the judging (judge or jury)? 
Isn't there a term for that?
(sincerely asked)


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> He's referring to Stapleton. Stapleton was a manager at T-Mobile, and transitioned to owner of the team under High Road Sports when Telekom dropped the sponsorship.
> 
> This idiot thinks because it's the same license that it's the same team and they're still dirty. He knows less about pro cycling than your garden variety rock.


Still no reason for why RR didn't get his license? 
Still hurling insults and now lieing about what I "thinks"? 
I posted the link to what I stated. It wasn't I who said it. www.rif.org



> "Proof: Team Telecom became Columbia HTC after many riders were caught in Operation Puerto with evidence of organized blood doping,
> HGH, EPO, steroids etc. In order for the team to exist they hired new management with a mandate for transparency."
> 
> https://forums.roadbikereview.com/sho...1&postcount=28


Come back up for air once you've Googled an answer to what is being sought here...
...the reason Ball wasn't allowed to race this year 
(no personal opinions or suggestions). 

:lol:


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> It's not an assumption if I asked if it was the case now, is it?
> (who's assuming here?)


You said it right here:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2675228&postcount=24

Nice try, though.

I just noticed that you quote _yourself_ in your signature line.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> In other words, you're talking about monies being held in escrow?
> Your response is typical of the RRHers...(probably, maybe, etc...)...no certainty.


Are you serious? I said explicitly that as outsiders _none_ of us can know the facts on many of these alleged controversies, but that doesn't mean we can't have more or less confidence in some statements than others. If you think that your confidence in Ball's statements is justified while the much wider doubts expressed are preposterous, well, ok, but have you asked yourself why you're in such a small minority?



2ndGen said:


> I posted the man's own words (Ball's) and requested what the UCI had to say about this.
> 
> Still, nothing but crickets chirping.


Are you trying to make us make the UCI respond? Apparently they haven't commented. I think you've already received that answer. They haven't commented on why they gave licenses to other teams, though, either, as far as I can tell.

http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI7/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1

(Added: Why not demand that Ball explain it? Did he have enough Mexican racers to satisfy the Continental team requirements? Did they fit the right age distribution? You do understand that there are requirements for a team to be licensed, right?)



2ndGen said:


> What am I saying that I don't have a basis for?


At a minimum, the two specific things I've already mentioned are that you're wrong to presume that a successful litigant will be entitled to attorneys fees and you're either unreasonable or ignorant to believe that a requested bank guarantee means that the UCI is holding on to Ball's money. Then you tried to pretend that you hadn't asserted the attorneys fees point, which calls into question your claims to sincerity. 



2ndGen said:


> You as an attorney should know that if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist. Right?


No, definitive proof is hardly the end of the story for any purpose where a dispute is concerned. I'm not even sure what you're saying---you think lawyers don't encourage clients to settle disputes even where allegations against the client can't be definitively proven? 



2ndGen said:


> all sorts of unrelated incidents to try to convince whoever was doing the judging (judge or jury)?
> Isn't there a term for that?
> (sincerely asked)


Litigants may have genuinely different views as to what's "relevant" in any trial, and the judge may have a different view, too. But if you think that the only issues relevant even in a court of law are those strictly within the confines of the particular dispute, you're absolutely wrong. Character can often be relevant, as evidenced by past behavior. You may think that people should set aside a few years worth of impressions of Michael Ball in considering how he may portray an issue in an interview today. I guess if time Kim Jong Il claims to break the hour record, I'll believe him.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Undecided said:


> If you think that your confidence in Ball's statements is justified while the much wider doubts expressed are preposterous, well, ok, but have you asked yourself why you're in such a small minority?


Because I'm not as into racing as those who are in the majority. Ball is in the minority too.
I'm not an elitist cycling snob. I believe that his team should be allowed to race if others who've done worse are allowed to race. That doesn't make me wrong...it makes me "reasonable". Since when can't a majority be wrong? Remember Jim Crow? 








> Are you trying to make us make the UCI respond? Apparently they haven't commented. I think you've already received that answer. They haven't commented on why they gave licenses to other teams, though, either, as far as I can tell.


But did the other teams outrightly challenge the UCI and accuse them of lieing like Ball did? 








> (Added: Why not demand that Ball explain it? Did he have enough Mexican racers to satisfy the Continental team requirements? Did they fit the right age distribution? You do understand that there are requirements for a team to be licensed, right?)


Right...which ones were not met? That's all I'm asking. You're coming back with possibilities. The UCI came back with silence. Ball claims he was qualified to race. I have no reason to not believe him, but every reason to not automatically believe that the UCI acted in a neutral manner here when one looks at how Ball's spoken out against them (and everybody here has been touting that all thread long).





> At a minimum, the two specific things I've already mentioned are that you're wrong to presume that a successful litigant will be entitled to attorneys fees and you're either unreasonable or ignorant to believe that a requested bank guarantee means that the UCI is holding on to Ball's money. Then you tried to pretend that you hadn't asserted the attorneys fees point, which calls into question your claims to sincerity.


Slow your roll there...

A) I ASKED if a person is entitled to attorney's fees. www.rif.org and 

B) This is the 2nd time that I've stated that. You might want to run and jump to a conclusion on your own without having read every single word I wrote from beginning to end, but it is what it is. I ASKED (and specifically stated that I'm no attorney), if they would be entitled to having their fees paid for by the plaintiff if they'd won and no one ever answered that. Except now. Don't confuse your "not" having read where I asked the question first with my being insincere. 





> No, definitive proof is hardly the end of the story for any purpose where a dispute is concerned. I'm not even sure what you're saying---you think lawyers don't encourage clients to settle disputes even where allegations against the client can't be definitively proven?


No. But, if I had an open and shut case, why settle when a win would be far more likely than not? I KNOW lawyers try to get cases over with as quickly as possible...it's great business to get that fee fast and to not leave a case open to the potential of some unforeseen event causing it to be lost. Bird in a hand mentality. Plus, less work. 





> Litigants may have genuinely different views as to what's "relevant" in any trial, and the judge may have a different view, too. But if you think that the only issues relevant even in a court of law are those strictly within the confines of the particular dispute, you're absolutely wrong. Character can often be relevant, as evidenced by past behavior. You may think that people should set aside a few years worth of impressions of Michael Ball in considering how he may portray an issue in an interview today. I guess if time Kim Jong Il claims to break the hour record, I'll believe him.


No, I just think that when it comes to cycling, he should be judged by how he's acted in his capacity as the team owner. Granted, he might come before a racist judge who'd make it difficult for him to win his argument regardless of proof, or maybe a judge who just doesn't like men with black hair or a judge who hates RR period. There are tons of reasons why someone in power would want Ball to fail, but if things were just in this world, the only thing that would matter would be what could be proven. You being an attorney know far better than I that justice isn't always served in a court. Right? 

But that's all besides the point. Why didn't he get a license? What is/are the reason(s)? Period. 
Everything else is just guesstimation, opinion and conjecture. 

All I've heard so far is coulda/woulda/shoulda. Ball gave specific information. 

I had a situation I had to deal with legally. Someone I knew was falsely accused of something. They went to court. I accompanied them for moral support. When the judge asked for specific proofs of the allegations (dates, times, etc...), the accusers had to scurry about for paperwork while the person I accompanied named all the information off the top of their head. This so impressed the judge that he called out those accusing the person I accompanied and told them to not walk back into that courtroom again unless they could prove what they were alleging. My friend not only proved that they were innocent of the false allegations, but came out of there smelling like roses. 

They (my friend) weren't trained in law, but they simply told the truth and they trounced the TWO lawyers that the other party hired + the two accusers. Those lawyers walked out of there madly p'd off and the judge kept them there as he wailed on them for 10 minutes straight while I internally LMAO at them. 

This is what I want to see with Ball V. UCI. Instead of "because we said so", I want to see them go at it in a public forum. 

There are 2 things that could happen.

1. The UCI shuts down Ball with a reasonable explanation.

or...

2. Ball proves what he alleged against them (that he met the proper criteria and that they were the ones who messed it up). 

But then again, they might have the same mentality that RRHers have..."Ball's not a nice guy! He's a blankety blank! He's unpleasant!" yada yada yada!



:lol:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Undecided said:


> You said it right here:
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2675228&postcount=24
> 
> Nice try, though.



What? The only time that assuming is mentioned in that link is where I said this:

"If they've moved on, then I'm assuming their not talking about it anymore...just the RRH'ers." 

Come on counselor, you should know better! :lol:

What are you responding to here? 

(nice try of you to only use a section of a post and not respond to the post)







> I just noticed that you quote _yourself_ in your signature line.


Are you still "undecided"? 

:lol:


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Sweet baby jesus.

You guys can stop feeding this ridiculous troll...no one would mind.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> Sweet baby jesus.
> 
> You guys can stop feeding this ridiculous troll...no one would mind.


:lol: 

All they had to do was just answer the question. 
If they couldn't, everything else was just fodder for a waste of time. 
And I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have become ridiculous.
But it was me who got lured off topic big time. 

As for them? They can't help themselves. 
Moth to a flame syndrome. 
Then again, neither can I. 

No one has to mind...all they have to do is to ignore the thread. 
To complain about it and to come back to it, well, that's just plain not prudent. Right?

Here's what I love about forums; Little red box with white X in the middle at top 
right of screen makes this all go away for those not interested in this thread.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> There are 2 things that could happen.
> 
> 1. The UCI shuts down Ball with a reasonable explanation.


They are under no obligation to do so. There is no automatic right to have a team even if you fill all the forms, dot all the i's and cross all the t's and fulfil all the criteria on time.



> or...
> 
> 2. Ball proves what he alleged against them (that he met the proper criteria and that they were the ones who messed it up).


Nor is this going to happen otherwise it would have already happened or be in action.

While Astana had problems last season re payments and were of concern at the time, they cooperated with the UCI and didn't complain to the media about the conditions that were being imposed on them. 

RR on the other hand were built on high profile Puerto suspects, had numerous public falling outs with riders and directors over contracts, pay and "personality clashes" on top of their problems with meeting the criteria and deadlines. All of this is not indicative of a rebel attitude, rather cause for serious concern that all is not well deeper within the team's structure.

RR's sporting achievements can only be a deciding factor if there is a little concern over their admin. That is what has happened to Lampre. They haven't got a free pass though, just a temporary licence until the end of this month. The first I was aware of this was in the run up to the new season in January. RR on the other hand has been an ongoing problem that has been reported far out of proportion to their relative standing. No wonder the UCI declined their application(s).

So we will probably never know why they were refused a professional licence other than MB's allegations. His best way back to the professional ranks would be to get some solid results, be more gracious in his employment policy and tighten up on his admin so that next season he can hand all the appropriate forms over on time and correctly filled out. It is entirely possible to do that and have the same rebellious attitude you were attracted to.


----------



## cycledog81 (Jan 8, 2008)

2ndGen said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great advise, best idea you have had to date.
Done deal !


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

You directly stated, without qualification, that the riders would be entitled to attorneys fees. That was the point you insisted you hadn't assumed, but had only asked about.

Your posting is disingenuous and you have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to engage in reasonable discussion, so I'm done.

You should try bringing your questions to the UCI.

http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI3/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkyNQ&LangId=1


----------



## beaker (Feb 2, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> Did you read the article I posted?
> 
> Resurrected!
> 
> ...


Um, no they won't. They need to have a PRO license in order to compete in many of the races that would earn any points. What you seem to be missing is an understanding of how pro cycling works. You have at least admitted that you are new to following pro cycling. Now if Mr. Ball could only admit as much this thread would be a lot simpler.

Speaking of Ball, has he ever shown any proof that he met any (let alone all) of the requirements set out for licensing at any level? You keep asking for proof of why exactly the UCI denied Rock a license, but I have yet to see any proof that Rock deserved a license in the first place. 

Until either side can produce any proof this is all just conjecture.

[/END THREAD]


----------



## LCFrecrider (Jan 4, 2006)

The UCI makes their own rules and doesn't have to reply. 

I did hear a rumor that Ball was going to start his own bike racing league - it supposed to be totally *****en and much better than the UCI, prolly put them out of business... Does anybody have any proof that this is NOT true? Just asking questions...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

LCFrecrider said:


> The UCI makes their own rules and doesn't have to reply.
> 
> I did hear a rumor that Ball was going to start his own bike racing league - it supposed to be totally *****en and much better than the UCI, prolly put them out of business... Does anybody have any proof that this is NOT true? Just asking questions...


He said the same about making wheelsets that would put Zipp, Mavic and Shimano out of business. Of course, this was said in anger after nobody would sponsor them for wheels, and of course, these mythical Rock Racing wheels never materialized.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> But that's where I see the BEAUTY of Rock Racing. Of all their riders, only one fell back (Ty), but the rest proved that they could compete cleanly again.


Kayle Leogrande. Educate yourself, especially in MB's blustering when trying to handle that situation before the hammer dropped for good. Please tell us how quickly he had to backtrack from his media offensive against the UCI in that case.



2ndGen said:


> That was the whole point of RR and that's what I loved about them. And after all of that, they (the riders) won't be allowed to ride with the big boys? Regardless of Ball's acts/actions/statements, the riders deserved it. Lesser deserving owners/riders (IMO) are allowed to ride.


Almost all of their more successful riders already had their respective chances to play with the big boys. Individually they each blew it.



2ndGen said:


> who can deny that he put together a team of misfits and created something out of nothing?


Ball created nothing. The backwater events which were almost exclusively the stages on RR had any success, are profoundly farther down the food chain than their previous racing opportunities and successes. If you would consider taking riders who were far more accomplished previously, and cobbling them together to produce results that would barely even make a ripple in any major cycling media, and call that "creating something" then you're welcome to it.



2ndGen said:


> What would they have brought to the Pro scene in Europe? I just wanted to see them go all the way.
> _*If they were dopers*_ or if they had violated any of the UCI's rules, I could understand. But neither was the case.


If they were dopers??? LOL! Do yourself a favour and do a bit of research on the RR riders who have garnered most of their racing success.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

This thread is like a bad joke that's so bad that it completes the cycle and starts to become funny again. Or like someone who comes out and is trying to convince us the earth is flat, not round.

So 2ndGen, are you Micheal Ball?


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

Dan Gerous said:


> This thread is like a bad joke that's so bad that it completes the cycle and starts to become funny again. Or like someone who comes out and is trying to convince us the earth is flat, not round.


This entire thread is like a black hole of debate. All rational thought and logic get sucked in and none comes back out.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

Circlip said:


> This entire thread is like a black hole of debate. All rational thought and logic get sucked in and none comes back out.


For that reason, I think it should be a sticky. 
In the future, when I get caught up in a debate and find myself wondering how I got to the point of energetically debating an issue I don't really care about, this very thread will serve its purpose. When I find myself debating with someone whose stance I don't know despite three pages of posts and replies, I'll need some point of reference. This thread will be that point, that beacon, that lighthouse, warning my ship of sanity away from the rocky coast of debate for debate's sake, the unprovable point, snake eating its own tail. 
In the shopping mall of pointless debate, this topic can serve as the self-locating "You are here->X". From this point, good judgement will have you turn around 180 degrees and exit the topic, forsaking the Sodom of the attention [email protected], never to look back, lest you be turned into a pillar of salt.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

Jesse D Smith said:


> For that reason, I think it should be a sticky.


Indeed, this thread has achived it's own immortality in cyberspace, in which I will always think of it as the "Lewinsky thread", having assumed it's rightful place in the historic list of things that suck.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Jesse D Smith said:


> For that reason, I think it should be a sticky.
> In the future, when I get caught up in a debate and find myself wondering how I got to the point of energetically debating an issue I don't really care about, this very thread will serve its purpose. When I find myself debating with someone whose stance I don't know despite three pages of posts and replies, I'll need some point of reference. This thread will be that point, that beacon, that lighthouse, warning my ship of sanity away from the rocky coast of debate for debate's sake, the unprovable point, snake eating its own tail.
> In the shopping mall of pointless debate, this topic can serve as the self-locating "You are here->X". From this point, good judgement will have you turn around 180 degrees and exit the topic, forsaking the Sodom of the attention [email protected], never to look back, lest you be turned into a pillar of salt.


Genius post. Thank you!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Found an image that summaries this thread perfectly.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> So we will probably never know why they were refused a professional licence other than MB's allegations.
> 
> His best way back to the professional ranks would be to get some solid results, be more gracious in his employment policy and tighten up on his admin so that next season he can hand all the appropriate forms over on time and correctly filled out.
> 
> It is entirely possible to do that and have the same rebellious attitude you were attracted to.


Reasonable.

And true, but do you see the double standards there? 
On the employment issue? 
The same way that the UCI is defended here for being able to do what they want with their organization, 
so should a team owner (especially one who pays for the overwhelming majority of his team with his own money).
The UCI would'nt be the UCI without the teams that race in it. 

I think in any sport ranking top 5 would be respectable. 
So actual performance can't the reason that he was denied. 

Until the UCI talks, so far, all we know from the 2 parties is that Ball was miscategorized by the UCI. 
Maybe that's why their not talking...because they can't prove that he's lieing about it and it might be a huge embarrassment for them. 
But that's as much "probably, maybe, could be" defense as the RRH'ers are given here. 
Isn't it?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

cycledog81 said:


> Great advise, best idea you have had to date.
> Done deal !


Somehow, I highly doubt it! 

But if you manage it, I'll be impresed!

:lol:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Dan Gerous said:


> This thread is like a bad joke that's so bad that it completes the cycle and starts to become funny again. Or like someone who comes out and is trying to convince us the earth is flat, not round.
> 
> So 2ndGen, are you Micheal Ball?












Uh...no. 

Wish I had his money though.  

It's turned into a bad joke for sure with the non-topic related talk and the inability 
of some to contribute to a thread without crumbling into insulting name callers. 
I guess, that's all they can come back with when they don't have answers.

Too much passion to expend on a forum when there are women to be loved and bikes to be ridden! 

:lol:

(the clouds have been gone, the sun came back out, I go riding for a day and geesh! :lol: )


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Undecided said:


> You directly stated, without qualification, that the riders would be entitled to attorneys fees. That was the point you insisted you hadn't assumed, but had only asked about.
> 
> Your posting is disingenuous and you have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to engage in reasonable discussion, so I'm done.
> 
> ...


But that wasn't ALL that I directly stated, without qualification. 

You are parsing my quotes.You are taking ONE quote out of a multi-page thread.
I clearly asked (for anybody who read the thread) if that was the case BEFORE THAT 
and never retracted my question.

Did I write it? Yes. Was that ALL that I wrote? No. Wouldn't it be great for your argument if
you could just take what you wanted out of a thread and claim that nothing else was said? 
Wait, let me retract that...maybe in "undecided" world, you could. 

www.rif.org

By the way, still no reason as to why RR was denied undecided?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

beaker said:


> Um, no they won't. They need to have a PRO license in order to compete in many of the races that would earn any points. What you seem to be missing is an understanding of how pro cycling works. You have at least admitted that you are new to following pro cycling. Now if Mr. Ball could only admit as much this thread would be a lot simpler.


A team isn't racing unless it's pro racing? 
Amateur racing doesn't count? 

(Reminds me of an exchange I had with a Road Bike Snob who claimed that American racing isn't real racing.) 

Anyway, it's clear that the UCI doesn't want Ball to succeed or for his team to have a chance to prove that they can play in the big leagues. They shut him down and without a definitive reason other than (as posed by the UCI's apologists on this thread) "because they can do whatever they want to do, so there! Naaaa!"

:lol:






> Speaking of Ball, has he ever shown any proof that he met any (let alone all) of the requirements set out for licensing at any level? You keep asking for proof of why exactly the UCI denied Rock a license, but I have yet to see any proof that Rock deserved a license in the first place.
> 
> Until either side can produce any proof this is all just conjecture.


"What you seem to be missing is an understanding of how" posting on a thread works! :lol:
That's not the topic of this particular thread. But you're welcome to start one if you'd like. 







> [/END THREAD]


Yikes!

Hope you're not that "premature" in other areas too!

:lol:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> He said the same about making wheelsets that would put Zipp, Mavic and Shimano out of business. Of course, this was said in anger after nobody would sponsor them for wheels, and of course, these mythical Rock Racing wheels never materialized.


*You mean the "Lightweight" wheels? *


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Educate yourself...


I'm trying to, but can't find why RR was denied a UCI license. Do you know why "officially"? 
Or will there just be more "probably cuz..." (followed by personal opinions)? 





> Almost all of their more successful riders already had their respective chances to play with the big boys. Individually they each blew it


.

"their races" then "individually" in the same sentiment? 
Talk about having your cake and eating it too. 
How did they perform as a team? 

Oh yeah! Top 5! (Here come the American racing ain't as good rants now...)




> Ball created nothing. The backwater events which were almost exclusively the stages on RR had any success, are profoundly farther down the food chain than their previous racing opportunities and successes. If you would consider taking riders who were far more accomplished previously, and cobbling them together to produce results that would barely even make a ripple in any major cycling media, and call that "creating something" then you're welcome to it.


:lol:

And there it is! I've been dealing with RRH'ers too long! So predictable! 
Top 5 is unworthy of recognition to you? 
Well, you're welcome to that. 

Me as a new cyclist who is just getting into watching racing am very impressed with that. 
Glad I'm not that jaded that I can't appreciate such an accomplishment by someone who the establishment is against. 
I hope I never grow to be like that either. 







> If they were dopers??? LOL! Do yourself a favour and do a bit of research on the RR riders who have garnered most of their racing success.


You do the research sport! :lol: 
Because I haven't found any!

What proof do you have that RR used drugs as a team? 
(Hamilton has already been dealt with on this thread.)


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Circlip said:


> This entire thread is like a black hole of debate. All rational thought and logic get sucked in and none comes back out.


True. Simple questions were asked. 

RRHers can't answer them "as" asked and become enraged to the point of vulgar 
responses and personal insults to a stranger who likes a team they seem to hate. 

They continually try to change the topic or introduce non-topic related matter. 

But in the defense of the minority here of those who've responded intelligently, 
there has been (speaking for myself) some input that has actually been constructive.
Unfortunately that gets drowned out.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Jesse D Smith said:


> For that reason, I think it should be a sticky.
> In the future, when I get caught up in a debate and find myself wondering how I got to the point of energetically debating an issue I don't really care about, this very thread will serve its purpose. When I find myself debating with someone whose stance I don't know despite three pages of posts and replies, I'll need some point of reference. This thread will be that point, that beacon, that lighthouse, warning my ship of sanity away from the rocky coast of debate for debate's sake, the unprovable point, snake eating its own tail.
> In the shopping mall of pointless debate, this topic can serve as the self-locating "You are here->X". From this point, good judgement will have you turn around 180 degrees and exit the topic, forsaking the Sodom of the attention [email protected], never to look back, lest you be turned into a pillar of salt.


Then what are we going to have "to do" when it's raining? 

:lol:

Honestly, speaking for myself, I'm so full of pent up energy from not having been able to ride that I've forsaken my usual "ain't worth the wasted time" attitude and have strapped on full competitive testosterone hat to try to get rid of some of the cabin fever I've been dealing with. 

At least, that was until yesterday! On it's way back to the 60's and I'm caring less and less! :lol: Trail riding today!


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> Found an image that summaries this thread perfectly.


Why Coolhand?

Did somebody actually post an official reason as to why the UCI denied Rock Racing a license? 
(Please answer with an "X" in the appropriate box)

[__] Yes
[__] No


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

*Best "letter" of all time*



2ndGen said:


> *You mean the "Lightweight" wheels? *


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=michael+ball+letter+to+steve+hed

aaaah Lightweight wheels? You might try

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Lightweight+wheels

That's not too difficult is it? Learning about the sport you love and your hero can be fun!


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

PaleAleYum said:


> https://lmgtfy.com/?q=michael+ball+letter+to+steve+hed
> 
> aaaah Lightweight wheels? You might try
> 
> ...


Actually, if you read the post I was responding to, he was asking about a specific set of wheels (Rock Racing wheels). 
The only wheel sponsor they've had is "Lightweight". Those wheels are still being produced, 
so if it wasn't The Lightweight wheelset he was talking about, I wanted to know which wheels he was talking about 
(since those are still being made).

See? Knowing what you're talking about can be fun too! 

:lol:


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

One guy's opinion - hiring Pevenage is reason enough for UCI's decision. Whether it was UCI's actual reason, it's reason enough for me to agree. Pevenage is strongly suspected and, as I understand it, still being investigated for condoning, if not actively participating in, systematic doping within Team Telekom. In essence, strongly suspected and maybe yet to be "indicted" as a "dealer". Far different from a doping rider ("user") who got caught and served "time" per the rules. Former is far more damaging to public perception of pro cycling, and that perception is crucial in UCI's efforts to increase sponsor support for both teams and races. Note that sponsors have been dropping cycling left and right because of perceptions of organized doping; UCI wants to reverse that. Pevenage hiring does not help UCI in that mission.

To me, hiring Pevenage is like hiring a member of Bernie Madoff's family (not indicted, but strongly suspected and under investigation for involvement in Madoff's investment fraud) to run your investment brokerage, then applying for a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, and then crying foul when NYSE says "no". Innocent until proven guilty? Sure - in court. But not in public opinion, and thus, for the sake of rebuilding trust in investment business overall, I cannot imagine NYSE granting such a brokerage a seat. Unless and until investigations give those folks a clean bill of business health.

Whatever UCI's actual reason, Pevenage hiring tells me RR organization (not the riders - I feel bad for them!) is bad for rebuilding cycling's image and thus its current and long term financial support. Reason enough for me to support the license rejection. We can, of course, agree to disagree.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> I guess, that's all they can come back with when they don't have answers.


You asked for an answer to a question that you could have googled and found that there is no concrete answer. You then came in here and when people who are infinitely smarter than yourself in the realm of pro cycling offered explanations that would likely result in a license denial (based upon your hero's past transgressions) and all you have to say is "where's the proof" and "it's the snobs that did it."

Really, either read about and learn about pro cycling or take your bike out and zip your hole about the state of affairs in the pro peloton.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

LookDave said:


> One guy's opinion - hiring Pevenage is reason enough for UCI's decision. Whether it was UCI's actual reason, it's reason enough for me to agree. Pevenage is strongly suspected and, as I understand it, still being investigated for condoning, if not actively participating in, systematic doping within Team Telekom. In essence, strongly suspected and maybe yet to be "indicted" as a "dealer". Far different from a doping rider ("user") who got caught and served "time" per the rules. Former is far more damaging to public perception of pro cycling, and that perception is crucial in UCI's efforts to increase sponsor support for both teams and races. Note that sponsors have been dropping cycling left and right because of perceptions of organized doping; UCI wants to reverse that. Pevenage hiring does not help UCI in that mission.
> 
> To me, hiring Pevenage is like hiring a member of Bernie Madoff's family (not indicted, but strongly suspected and under investigation for involvement in Madoff's investment fraud) to run your investment brokerage, then applying for a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, and then crying foul when NYSE says "no". Innocent until proven guilty? Sure - in court. But not in public opinion, and thus, for the sake of rebuilding trust in investment business overall, I cannot imagine NYSE granting such a brokerage a seat. Unless and until investigations give those folks a clean bill of business health.
> 
> Whatever UCI's actual reason, Pevenage hiring tells me RR organization (not the riders - I feel bad for them!) is bad for rebuilding cycling's image and thus its current and long term financial support. Reason enough for me to support the license rejection. We can, of course, agree to disagree.


Very insightful LD. 

Explain this to me if I got it wrong...the UCI allows Pevenage's former employer to keep their license and to race. Am I right about that? 

It's like RR is being punished in advance for violations that haven't happened.

But I respect your position and agree with you.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> You asked for an answer to a question that you could have googled and found that there is no concrete answer.


I actually stated that...I wrote that I couldn't find anything online. 
And as this thread has undeniably proven, there are ways to get firsthand accounts that can't be found online. Google isn't the end all/be all to research. 






> You then came in here and when people who are infinitely smarter than yourself in the realm of pro cycling offered explanations that would likely result in a license denial (based upon your hero's past transgressions) and all you have to say is "where's the proof" and "it's the snobs that did it."


Hey, if it walks and talks like a snob, it's a snob! Period.

And if anybody's going to allege something it remains just that...an allegation without any proof. Period. 

If you argue with those two points, you're unreasonable. 

I didn't ask for "likely" reasons. Where'd you get that from? I asked for "the" reason. 
And I respected those persons' who have given their opinions respectfully WITH respect. 

Now to those who just want to come here and flame? 
For them I have a fire hose. 





> Really, either read about and learn about pro cycling or take your bike out and zip your hole about the state of affairs in the pro peloton.


You seem to be in the wrong country. 
And don't understand what a "forum" is for. 
But then again, nothing new there.

Hey! 

Did you Google the answer? 
Did you find out "why" the UCI didn't give Ball a license this year?

Would I be wrong to tell YOU to zip your hole for being off topic?
No...but I wouldn't do that because you're on a FORUM (look it up... Dictionary.com )
Now, stop flaming and contribute something constructive. 
Or not. It's up to you...you're on a FORUM. 

Honestly, I don't know why you even bother checking this thread out. You obviously don't have the answer to what I want to know. 

You remind me of the patient who complains of the pain he has to a doctor for something he's doing to himself...his prescription was "well, then stop doing that."

(wink, wink)

Anyhoo...be back later...going riding now!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> *You mean the "Lightweight" wheels? *


God, you're either unable to use google or you're just too stubborn and ignorance is bliss for you.

Multiple companies would not sponsor RR. When those companies refused, he went off on a tear about how the cycling world was out to get him and he would make products so much better and would put those companies out of business.

HED was one of the big sponsors that he scared off, and I believe they were the ones he claimed he would put out of business:
https://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-3-9-16981-1,00.html

Indeed, from Cyclingnews, HED was one of the victims of Ball's antics, along with Scott, Look and a few other companies:
https://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/rock_racing_bikes08


Clearly it doesn't matter what anyone posts here. You're so blinded by love for this disaster of a team that you'll do anything to defend them, but unfortunately you refuse to see that this team is horribly mismanaged travesty that is the laughing stock of the professional peloton.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> God, you're either unable to use google or you're just too stubborn and ignorance is bliss for you.


Again with the insults? 

Why can't you just have a civil discussion? 





> Clearly it doesn't matter what anyone posts here. You're so blinded by love for this disaster of a team that you'll do anything to defend them, but unfortunately you refuse to see that this team is horribly mismanaged travesty that is the laughing stock of the professional peloton.


Uh, but you never answered the question...were you refereing to the Lightweight produced wheels? 

Yes or no?


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> Very insightful LD.
> 
> Explain this to me if I got it wrong...the UCI allows Pevenage's former employer to keep their license and to race. Am I right about that?
> 
> ...



Not quite right - that team had to completely reorganize, getting rid of a lot of folks including Pevenage, many of those folks senior to him as I understand it. They didn't just get rid of him.

RR not being punished, as I see it, for violations that have not (yet) happened; they are (perhaps) not being allowed to stay professionally licensed because they hired a team director who is publicly perceived as being a major part of cycling's big problem, thus undermining cycling's financial stability. RR perceived, by me and lots of others, as hiring a problem in Pevenage, not a solution.

If I'm concerned about short and long range stability of a business or organization, hiring someone perceived as "the problem" is not good for that stability, that rebuilding of trust. Deal breaker, game over. Try again next year, with a different plan.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Very insightful LD.
> 
> Explain this to me if I got it wrong...the UCI allows Pevenage's former employer to keep their license and to race. Am I right about that?


Incorrect.

The team "T-Mobile" was completely rebuilt. Bob Stapleton was an investment partner within T-Mobile, not in the daily running, but in the management portion. When the teamlost its license, Stapleton basically bought the team and re-built it from the ground up, hiring well respected and well known management, and a core of young riders that had not been brought up through the T-Mobile organized dope system. They instituted a full on internal anti dope system and continue to utilize the UCI Bio Passport program.

NONE of the HTC-Columbia riders have even been suspected of any kind of doping or cheating, and don't tend to hire folks who have "served their time" either.

The ONLY similarities between T-Mobile and High Road (HTC Columbia) are that they ride under the same license (which is a piece of paper) and the person who owns High Road Sports (and the license) was previously an investment partner in the T-Mobile team.

This is the 3rd time this has been written. Read it. Understand it. Rock Racing is a refugee house for dopers while HTC has relied on it's young developing riders for years. The two teams are night and day, to the fans AND to the UCI.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Did you find out "why" the UCI didn't give Ball a license this year?


Did you? No, you seem to think that the "reason" given by a pathological liar, scammer, cheat and hot-headed general dooshbag is an acceptable reason.

The UCI took the high road with "no comment." Despite what you think, the UCI doesn't just deny licenses because they don't like someone, otherwise there would be VERY FEW teams with licenses.

I understand you're unable to accept that your heros are finished in cycling. I feel bad for you, but honestly, they didn't make an impact on anything but most people's gag reflex.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Again with the insults?
> 
> Why can't you just have a civil discussion?
> 
> ...


HED wheels you idiot. I actually wrote:



> HED was one of the big sponsors that he scared off, and I believe they were the ones he claimed he would put out of business:
> http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6...6981-1,00.html


You obviously didn't bother to click the link, probably afraid to read about how Ball is a psycho.


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

*don't give yourself too much credit there ol buckaroo*



2ndGen said:


> See? Knowing what you're talking about can be fun too!




1. Your ability to detect subtle humor is hampered by your lack of knowledge on this issue. If you looked up mr ball's quote you would have it in full blow hard context. He shot off his mouth about creating the fastest baddest wheels ever known to man because Steve Hed got tired of mr ball and his way of doing business. mr ball never designed or produced any wheels, just hot air.

2. Lightweight doesn't sponsor teams. They have that much demand. Not sure which wheels the new amateur team will be using. The lightweight wheels have only appeared on the rebranded chinese prototypes shown at interbike last fall.

Peace out dude.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

robdamanii said:


> The team "T-Mobile" was completely rebuilt. Bob Stapleton was an investment partner within T-Mobile, not in the daily running, but in the management portion. When the teamlost its license, Stapleton basically bought the team and re-built it from the ground up, hiring well respected and well known management, and a core of young riders that had not been brought up through the T-Mobile organized dope system. They instituted a full on internal anti dope system and continue to utilize the UCI Bio Passport program.
> 
> NONE of the HTC-Columbia riders have even been suspected of any kind of doping or cheating, and don't tend to hire folks who have "served their time" either.
> 
> The ONLY similarities between T-Mobile and High Road (HTC Columbia) are that they ride under the same license (which is a piece of paper) and the person who owns High Road Sports (and the license) was previously an investment partner in the T-Mobile team.


Thanks for that discussion - same point, but much more detail than what I'd written about T-Mobile major overhaul.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

To All:
Thanks for giving me something to enjoy today during a lot of really pointless phone calls. 

To 2ndGen: 
The UCI turned down Rock's license because the application was determined to not meet their criteria. Thanks for your interest, we wish you the best in the future. Seriously, what else is there to know? 

If that answer isn't sufficient, you may want to stop asking the question. The UCI does some incredibly stupid sh*t and as fans of the sport, we get to like it or lump it. (See MLB - All-Star game winner gets home field advantage in World Series, NFL decides on uncapped year and ponders lock-out for season following this one, NHL locks out players and commits sporting public suicide, etc.)


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

2ndGen said:


> Reasonable.
> 
> And true, but do you see the double standards there?
> On the employment issue?
> ...


Top 5???? Top 5 means stuff all unless it's top 5 worldwide. They aren't even top 50.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

LookDave said:


> Thanks for that discussion - same point, but much more detail than what I'd written about T-Mobile major overhaul.


No sweat.

If I remember the details, Stapleton made a boatload of money when he sold Voicestream to Deutsche Telekom to create US T-Mobile. That was one of the reasons Stapleton was brought on board the team because he was well known to T-mobile brass and had sat upon the board of directors for T-Mobile USA. He was seen as a new guard in the cycling world, especially in that he had never been a part of cycling before, (IE not corrupted by the old system of doping and Omerta) but was well known for his management skills and attention to detail, and he was put in a management role in 2006. This all happened after the breaking news of Puerto, when a large number of the team was implicated, including Rudy Pevenage, Jan Ullrich and Oscar Sevillia (we all know where he went to race now don't we?) 

In June of 2007, Sergei Honchar was sacked by the team for suspicious values reported during independent, internal dope testing. This internal testing was part of the commitment to clean up the team and save the sponsorship. In July of 2007, Linus Gerdemann took the Malliot Jaune in the Tour, and a few days later it was revealed by the team that Patrick Sinkewitz had returned a positive test for testosterone in a late June 2007 training camp. He was immediately pulled from the tour and sacked from the team (remember the testing that caught him was INTERNALLY performed.) Sinkewitz received a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony that detailed the extensive team-wide doping practices in T-Mobile UP UNTIL 2006, when Stapleton took the reins. 

T-Mobile withdrew sponsorship, and the team operated on a reduced budget as Team High Road (Stapleton's sports management company founded when he took over the team in 2006) and raced under the UCI Protour license once owned by T-Mobile (transferred to High Road Sports when Stapleton took over the team.) 

Since then there has been continued internal programs (at least to my knowledge) until it was scrapped in favor of the UCI Biological Passport system.

So, to extrapolate on earlier posts, there's the HX of T-Mobile/HTC-Columbia. The only dopers on the team are long gone (some of them to Rock Racing, interestingly) and they are priding themselves on a clean philosophy.

Some info on the T-Mobile withdraw from the sport: http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-12-16633-1,00.html

On the topic:

Now, how is it a travesty that HTC is allowed to race again? What about the UCI having a double standard by letting HTC race and not allowing an entire TEAM of "repentant" dopers not race? I don't see the double standard at all, because there isn't one.

Do I know why RR was denied a license? Do you? Does Ball? Obviously not. All we're getting out of him is conjecture, and his word is about as good as goose poop, judging by his previous contractual and organizational failures. The UCI is the one who knows, and they own NOBODY an answer, let alone any of us plebeians. But it's quite easy to deduce, from Michael Ball's history with his riders, DSs, sponsors, and with the UCI, that he likely did not fulfill the requirements for licensure as a Pro Continental team. In terms of licensure as a Continental team, I also do not know, but one can deduce from the timelines that are in place, if he didn't file the paperwork for a Continental license around the same time as the Pro Con paperwork, he likely did not make the deadlines for application.

Pretty simple deductive reasoning. And I'll bank on deductive reasoning a lot more often than Michael Ball's word.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

LookDave said:


> Not quite right - that team had to completely reorganize, getting rid of a lot of folks including Pevenage, many of those folks senior to him as I understand it. They didn't just get rid of him.
> 
> RR not being punished, as I see it, for violations that have not (yet) happened; they are (perhaps) not being allowed to stay professionally licensed because they hired a team director who is publicly perceived as being a major part of cycling's big problem, thus undermining cycling's financial stability. RR perceived, by me and lots of others, as hiring a problem in Pevenage, not a solution.
> 
> If I'm concerned about short and long range stability of a business or organization, hiring someone perceived as "the problem" is not good for that stability, that rebuilding of trust. Deal breaker, game over. Try again next year, with a different plan.


Is the newly re-organized/staffed team still owned by the same owner?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> The ONLY similarities between T-Mobile and High Road (HTC Columbia) are that they ride under the same license (which is a piece of paper) and the person who owns High Road Sports (and the license) was previously an investment partner in the T-Mobile team.


So, both teams *have* identical ownership *AND *the identical license number.
Same team owner, same license, different staff. 
And he's still allowed to race a team.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Did you? No, you seem to think that the "reason" given by a pathological liar, scammer, cheat and hot-headed general dooshbag is an acceptable reason.
> 
> The UCI took the high road with "no comment." Despite what you think, the UCI doesn't just deny licenses because they don't like someone, otherwise there would be VERY FEW teams with licenses.
> 
> I understand you're unable to accept that your heros are finished in cycling. I feel bad for you, but honestly, they didn't make an impact on anything but most people's gag reflex.


In other words... "No."?


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

PaleAleYum said:


> 2. Lightweight doesn't sponsor teams. They have that much demand. Not sure which wheels the new amateur team will be using. The lightweight wheels have only appeared on the rebranded chinese prototypes shown at interbike last fall.
> 
> Peace out dude.


They aren't only sponsors, but literal business partners...
"For 2010, six companies will partner with Rock Racing to leverage its brand: Louis Garneau, Prologo, Shimano, FSA, Lightweight, and Vittoria."

https://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/2009/09/23/rock-racing-reveals-partners-product-line-2010/


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

3rensho said:


> To 2ndGen:
> The UCI turned down Rock's license because the application was determined to not meet their criteria. Thanks for your interest, we wish you the best in the future. Seriously, what else is there to know?
> 
> If that answer isn't sufficient, you may want to stop asking the question. The UCI does some incredibly stupid sh*t and as fans of the sport, we get to like it or lump it. (See MLB - All-Star game winner gets home field advantage in World Series, NFL decides on uncapped year and ponders lock-out for season following this one, NHL locks out players and commits sporting public suicide, etc.)


3,

I get bored too man!  Today however, I let it all out on a nice MTB ride. 

So, I'm back to "not" caring. The only thing dumber than some of the exchanges 
I've had here was my remaining in them after I realized how dumb they were. 

:idea:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> Top 5???? Top 5 means stuff all unless it's top 5 worldwide. They aren't even top 50.


And we'll never know how they'll place now will we?

They haven't even been allowed to compete.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> So, both teams *have* identical ownership *AND *the identical license number.
> Same team owner, same license, different staff.
> And he's still allowed to race a team.


Boy, you are stupid, you know that?

It is NOT the same owner that was in charge during the Puerto busts.
It is the same license (however it's NOT the identical license number, as it was re-registered in the US upon renewal in 2008). If you understood that there are 20 ProTour licenses granted, you would understand that they are much like a liquor license.
The independent testing program snared 2 doping riders and they were immediately sacked from the team.
HTC has gone from having no sponsors to having two huge main sponsors in 2 years. 

Sure, they're a bunch of dopers. Never mind that nobody on the team has been busted for a doping offense, while 85% of Rock Racing has been busted previously. Never mind that they have had two of their riders snared by UCI/USADA testing, NOT their own internal programs.

You're trolling now. You have the facts right in front of you and you're just ignoring them because they don't suit your cause, which is the mark of someone who has no defensible position.

Continue trolling. I'm going to continue laughing at your limitless knowledge of pro cycling as the intelligent posters here continue to smack you around like the dope you are.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Boy, you are stupid, you know that?
> 
> It is NOT the same owner that was in charge during the Puerto busts.
> It is the same license (however it's NOT the identical license number, as it was re-registered in the US upon renewal in 2008). If you understood that there are 20 ProTour licenses granted, you would understand that they are much like a liquor license.
> ...


Troll (Internet).
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts *inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages* in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, *with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional respons* or of otherwise* disrupting normal on-topic discussion*.

A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. 
Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war. 
A Troll is generally a person who is extremely skeptical of the main forum subject. 
He is generally interested to make other forum members look stupid. 
A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him. 
When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. 
Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them.


Yeah, sure, I'm the troll here. 
Not going to work sport.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> Troll (Internet).
> In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts *inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages* in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, *with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional respons* or of otherwise* disrupting normal on-topic discussion*.
> 
> Yeah, sure, I'm the troll here.
> Not going to work sport.


Your on topic conversation was a Ball interview. Bullcrap that you're not off topic.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

robdamanii said:


> Your on topic conversation was a Ball interview. Bullcrap that you're not off topic.


Discussion of amateur teams belongs in the Racing/Training forum, doesn't it?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Undecided said:


> Discussion of amateur teams belongs in the Racing/Training forum, doesn't it?


I think so.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Undecided said:


> Discussion of amateur teams belongs in the Racing/Training forum, doesn't it?


That was already pointed out but the mods haven't moved the thread 
unless someone runs to them and formally complains about it.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Your on topic conversation was a Ball interview. Bullcrap that you're not off topic.



When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. 
Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

2ndGen said:


> When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave.
> Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them.


Fits you to a "T".

The other hallmark of trolls are they don't read, they can't reason, and they ignore the facts. Looks like you bud.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

2ndGen said:


> So, both teams *have* identical ownership *AND *the identical license number.
> Same team owner, same license, different staff.
> And he's still allowed to race a team.


Negative on same owner, and your reply indicates you did not really read previous posts in this thread about Stapleton, which clearly show he is NOT same owner. Cliff Notes: Involved in development of US T-Mobile communications company, nothing to do with cycling, did very well in that, became an investment partner in Deutche Telekom/T-Mobile, US T-Mobile's parent corporation. LATER invited into cycling part of T-Mobile's operations by that company because he was a great manager who HADN'T PREVIOUSLY BEEN INVOLVED IN CYCLING AND WAS NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM; they wanted him to help clean up their team. Old guard who PRE-DATED Stapleton were out, and he made substantial progress in INTERNALLY catching doping riders, but T-Mobile had already had enough and pulled out a year or two later. Stapleton then took over with High Road Sports, sports management company which he'd independently founded in mid-2000's. He's been the team owner only a couple of years, involved in cycling only a couple of years before that, and doping problems of that team were rampant BEFORE HIS WATCH, and from all reports and testing results, CLEANED UP ON HIS WATCH.

A tad different from RR hiring Pevenage...

That's the history. Fact, not opinion. We're not making it up or speculating, you can find all of that in previous posts AND in any number of cycling news websites, magazines, etc. "Same owner" holds no water, and that reply suggests you're more interested in the catfighting than taking the couple of minutes of extra reading time to learn the history that drives the cycling business decisions being made today.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*Siren song*



robdamanii said:


> Your on topic conversation was a Ball interview. Bullcrap that you're not off topic.


The wax in my hears shall save me.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator Note*

And we are done.


----------

