# Astana barred from ASO events, including Tour!



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Per Velonews


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

*bring out the lawyers!*



FondriestFan said:


> Per Velonews




http://eurosport.yahoo.com/13022008/3/astana-barred-tour-de-france-doping.html

Astana barred from Tour de France over doping

Wed 13 Feb, 02:32 PM

PARIS (AFP) - The disgraced Astana team of reigning Tour de France champion Alberto Contador have been barred from competing in this year's race as a result of doping affairs over the past two years, organisers confirmed on Wednesday.

ASO (Amaury Sport Organisation) said that the team would not be allowed compete in any race organised by them.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> Per Velonews


SCREW ASO and the PN, TDF and any other crap they run. They are like little kids. "it's my race and I don't want you."

This is a NEW team and should be given a chance. Johan's riders have never tested positve under his team.

This sport has become a complete [email protected] joke as well as the TDF and the GIRO!


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Nice to see they got that barn door securely shut, long after the horses got out.


----------



## slideeslide (Feb 1, 2007)

Drop a email to the ASO.

Mine is already sent.

"Dear ASO,
Your decision to exclude Team Astana is your right as the organizer. Please understand, I have the right as a consumer to boycott watching, purchasing your merchandise, and sending any of my money towards Le Tour."

[email protected]


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I'm all for it. I think their hands were tied the last couple years because of the UCI/Protour arrangement.

I have not read the article yet, but shouldn't Cofidis be subject to the same restrictions? After all they left the race last year because of doping.

I admit to being an anti-fanboy of all things related to USPS though.


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

Doesn't this just make the Tour of Cali even closer to being THE premier cycling event on the planet??? 

I can't understand why the ASO would want to exclude a clean TdF winner....
None of the team that was busted is even part of the team any longer??? right???

The only point that they're making is that the ASO really doesn't have confidence in any team, or the people representing that team to race clean.... And... that the ASO doesn't have enough aptitude to clearly argue (with credibility) as to WHY Astana is being excluded. Otherwise they would have just made that abundantly clear when Astana pulled out of the TdF last season.. Right???


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> Doesn't this just make the Tour of Cali even closer to being THE premier cycling event on the planet???
> 
> I can't understand why the ASO would want to exclude a clean TdF winner....
> None of the team that was busted is even part of the team any longer??? right???
> ...



Clean TdF winner? That's an oxymoron.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

I've got no problem with this. I think the stated reason by itself is a bit weak-this ain't last years astana-. But in combination with the accountant's problems and the striking similarity of 08 astana to 07 disco, it's in keeping with a sport trying to turn the page. Had astana not hired johan they probably wouldn't have this problem but they probably wouldn't have levi and the acct, fwiw.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> Doesn't this just make the Tour of Cali even closer to being THE premier cycling event on the planet???
> 
> I can't understand why the ASO would want to exclude a clean TdF winner....
> None of the team that was busted is even part of the team any longer??? right???
> ...


No, the ToC is still relatively lame. The only ones that take it serious are the teams that don't get to race the big euro races. The pro tour teams that do race it use it as a ramp up.

They have to punish the team, that's why Astana is out. You can bet that the fact that Contador was Liberty plays a part, especially since the Spanish system might re-open Puerto.

I bet all the folks complaining wouldn't be raising a ruckus if it was another team excluded. Don't be fan-boy-ish.

Also, Andreas Kloeden was part of last years team, and would have been this year too. I admit to being an AK fan, however that does not change my position.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Next thing, Rasmussen will be invited back coz he was only asked to leave.

And, Vino will be the ambassador of the ASO now.

If every team starting afresh gets banned, let the Tour be raced by the ASO head and his vice president as his lieutenants. And race against perhaps Cat 1 racers.

Moreonic imbasillic bastids.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Had Astana not hired Johan, well, they might be in worse shape and not get any riders.

True - astana was linked with all the doping and crap.

But they are trying to use CSC's doping control system so that has to be credited to them.

I just think they should perhaps be given a chance as they are starting new. Maybe disapprove of Contador taking part since he was linked to Puerto and the case might be re-opened. But those who have no links to it and all? A tad unfair I guess.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

uzziefly said:


> Next thing, Rasmussen will be invited back coz he was only asked to leave.
> 
> And, Vino will be the ambassador of the ASO now.
> 
> ...


Nice hyperbole. 

Let's say that Enron, the company, had said "we made a mistake and got new accountants." Can we have no punishment? Silly, right? Well same thing here. Ok, so they got Brunyeel (which may not have been the best choice for starting over), and bought in some Disco riders. Does that mean that the team shouldn't be punished for the debacle?

You can bet Vino and Rasmussen won't ever ride an ASO event again (protour for that matter). 

I firmly believe that the ASO wants clean competition. Their hands were tied last year, and with the Rasmussen case, they were not told until the race was on that Rasmussen had missed controls.


----------



## hifi007 (Feb 13, 2008)

Why all the HATE for a team that hs NEVER tested positive (meaning USPS)? I think ASO needs another "S" in their name.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

You all need to take a chill pill and look at this a little more objectively. Astana, under Johan or whoever, does drugs. Contador does drugs, it started with Liberty which is - you guessed it, Astana. Do you really think that USPS never did drugs? Come on, they just had a program where they didn't get caught. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Seriously. 

I kind of liked Astana with Horner, Kloden and a host of others, but honestly they weren't going to do anything outside of the tour - so I say no big loss. 

All the more reason to root for Slipstream and High Road - are they doping? Probably, but the cockiness is at least a little bit under covers.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

velomonkey said:


> ...
> 
> All the more reason to root for Slipstream and High Road - are they doping? Probably, but the cockiness is at least a little bit under covers.


I was trying to avoid stating that most everyone does drugs (though I happen to believe it to be so)..

Your final point is a good one though. I actually believe Slipstream might be a real honest to goodness clean team. Time will tell. They certainly have the most comprehensive anti-doping system that any team has yet implemented.

High Road I'm not so sure about. The former T-Mobile team was as dirty as Astana.

And Rock Racing, I suspect someone will be busted this year for doping.


----------



## hifi007 (Feb 13, 2008)

Your are so right velomonkey. Nobody can ride and race clean. Every winner who has won the tour was dirty and that even includes the great Eddy Merckx!! Get serious! Oh, Cofidis and Robobank were aslo invited (as well as High Road). Such a joke.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> Nice hyperbole.
> 
> Let's say that Enron, the company, had said "we made a mistake and got new accountants." Can we have no punishment? Silly, right? Well same thing here. Ok, so they got Brunyeel (which may not have been the best choice for starting over), and bought in some Disco riders. Does that mean that the team shouldn't be punished for the debacle?
> 
> ...


Clean competition? Heck, almost everyone dopes but gets away. It's the stupid ones who get caught. Bluntly said that is.

So, will Astana ever be given a chance then? What, a 2, 3 year ban? How long till they are given a chance?

T Mobile had problems too. I don't see them excluded. Others as well.

And, these teams HAD dopers caught too.

At the very least, Disco had NO ONE positive (yeah, good system they had but I mean, other teams had people who actually got CAUGHT) so having their riders over shouldn't be a problem. Contador, well, exclude him from the Tour then. Levi and the rest were all 'clean as to never tested positive' compared to teams that had riders banned and tested and all and didn't change management etc.

At least Johan has a 'clean' record so to speak vs. the other directors.

I want a good reason on their part for this and also, why those other teams aren't banned too. If those teams are barred, then, fair enough.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

hifi007 said:


> Your are so right velomonkey. Nobody can ride and race clean. Every winner who has won the tour was dirty and that even includes the great Eddy Merckx!! Get serious! Oh, Cofidis and Robobank were aslo invited (as well as High Road). Such a joke.


eddy was a doper.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

Cofids is french, politics exist everywhere - hate the player not the game. High Road is suspect at best, but unlike Astana they are the only American team, see the above point. Robobank at least took the move and got that ugly Dane out of the picture and they have been above board team for a long time.

Did I say everyone doped. No, but you did. Calm down, take a chill pill and don't kid yourself that they're not doping, unless of course you think Bonds and Clemens are clean, too. Lance, all that guy needed was a Chris Carmichael magic and he wins the tour, you can get it too online for only a little cash a month.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

As I said above, why those former dirty teams like Rabbo and High Road and cofidis get invited is a mystery whilst Astana is made the 'scapegoat.'

Ban all of these teams then. Invite riders who never tested positive then since that's the only way to determine 'clean' riders. I mean, those caught definitely doped but those who didn't get caught most likely did too but at LEAST they're not caught so they can 'claim that they're clean.'

If you don't even go by this, then no one should be invited except us RBR riders perhaps.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> I have not read the article yet, but shouldn't Cofidis be subject to the same restrictions? After all they left the race last year because of doping.
> .


Yeah, right....The are French!

Why not ban CSC? their Manager is an admitted DOPER who was stripped of his title?

I am NO ASTANA fan.

Ban the riders, not the whole team. Albeto linked to OP, then ban him. Why Levi?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

uzziefly said:


> As I said above, why those former dirty teams like Rabbo and High Road and cofidis get invited is a mystery whilst Astana is made the 'scapegoat.'
> 
> Ban all of these teams then. Invite riders who never tested positive then since that's the only way to determine 'clean' riders. I mean, those caught definitely doped but those who didn't get caught most likely did too but at LEAST they're not caught so they can 'claim that they're clean.'
> 
> If you don't even go by this, then no one should be invited except us RBR riders perhaps.


HighRoad/T-Mobile was probaly the WORST team when it came to doping. Maybe ASO hates Borat and Kaszastain(?)

Yes, Ban Rabobank as well. Cofids, etc...

ANY team that had a rider caught doping. Why not!?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> I firmly believe that the ASO wants clean competition. Their hands were tied last year, and with the Rasmussen case, they were not told until the race was on that Rasmussen had missed controls.


Fine, then ban ANY and EVERY team that has ever been/had a rider caught for doping. That' INCLUDES past dopers who say they are clean. *Once you cheat always a cheat right?* How about cheating Frech teams?

If they *really *are trying to show they want a clean race, then you must go full throttle. All teams, riders and managers that have been caught. That inlcudes CSC.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

uzziefly said:


> As I said above, why those former dirty teams like Rabbo and High Road and cofidis get invited is a mystery whilst Astana is made the 'scapegoat.'
> .


Maybe they hated BORAT?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> HighRoad/T-Mobile was probaly the WORST team when it came to doping. Maybe ASO hates Borat and Kaszastain(?)
> 
> Yes, Ban Rabobank as well. Cofids, etc...
> 
> ANY team that had a rider caught doping. Why not!?


I'm a fan of some of the Astana riders, yes.

But that is exactly my point. Why just them? Sure, they want to clean it up, good on them.

But see my above posts.

If you wanna ban them, then you gotta ban others as well, or at LEAST, some other riders as well. Like, all those from Puerto. And, more.

You get the idea.

And invite teams that are 'clean,' i.e. never had a positive test before but according to their points so the best of these 'clean' teams are invited.

I don't see NFL teams banned coz their players dope. Or MLB or soccer for that matter. But, that's a different story I guess.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

uzziefly said:


> I'm a fan of some of the Astana riders, yes.
> 
> But that is exactly my point. Why just them? Sure, they want to clean it up, good on them.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. You need to ban everyone lie you and I said. Why not CSC? Thier boss has admitted to it and was stripped? Are they going to ban Zabel?

Prudhomme is an idiot! Do it right or don't do it.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree with you. You need to ban everyone lie you and I said. Why not CSC? Thier boss has admitted to it and was stripped? Are they going to ban Zabel?
> 
> Prudhomme is an idiot! Do it right or don't do it.


I'm tired, I wanna sleep.

They should all just get some h()()ker$ and bl()w and cool off.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

They ought to close the other thread on this subject so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Now listen, think logically and with moderation, not with your emotions.

It makes no sense ban every team that has a former doper on their team. Once a doper always a doper isn't necessarily true.

Each case is different. CSC has the Riis issue, and he wasn't allowed at the Tour last year. Don't be surprised if he isn't allowed this year as well.

Cofidis had a domestique test positive for testosterone. The guy admitted immediately and apologized. The whole team left the race. That's enough punishment for an organization.

But then look at Astana. Their GC rider and double stage winner tests for blood doping. Then one of his lieutenants (Kashenkin) test positive for blood doping. Mattias Kessler tested positive for doping as well, though that might have been before the actual race. To make matters worse, Vino and Kash deny that they doped. 

I say that shows the organization knew about the doping, and therefore regardless of whether or not they 'cleaned house', some sort of punishment must be served. The tour had a tremendous amount of bad press because of Vino.

The Rasmussen case is another thing altogether. He didn't test positive, and the ASO had no knowledge of his missed controls until well into the race. Does anyone believe that the ASO would have allowed Rasmussen a start if they had known? 

Rabobank did the right thing and didn't allow him to win the jersey and bring additional shame to the race, like Landis the year before.

Now there are two complications I can think of:
1. What team owns Astana? Is it the title sponsor? I think it is in this case. If it's not, and Astana is the same team in SPONSOR ONLY, then this is an injustice. You can't / shouldn't punish the sponsor, as I believe they generally are unaware of the inner workings of the team. I think the team ownership is the same as last year's though, so no foul.

2. If Rabobank (meaning the team owner, not the sponsor), knew that Rasmussen was lying about his whereabouts, then they should be given no quarter and should not be allowed to race this year.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> Let's say that Enron, the company, had said "we made a mistake and got new accountants." Can we have no punishment? Silly, right? Well same thing here. Ok, so they got Brunyeel (which may not have been the best choice for starting over), and bought in some Disco riders. Does that mean that the team shouldn't be punished for the debacle?


Your Enron analogy doesn't work. If you had said we got new accountants, new management, and new employees, then it would make sense. 

Astana dumps its management and dumps most of its riders. The bad guys are gone. So who is getting punished here? Who pays for the sins of the father? The logic escapes me.


----------



## thebadger (Jul 27, 2002)

So many keep asking why T-Mob/High Road, Cofidis, Rabo were not excluded. From what I have seen, they have not been selected to the Tour either. Wasn't ASO's announcement only that Astana would not participate in ASO events. I saw nothing of actual Tour selections being made yet.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

I bet they are shaking in their boots!!

USA-Versus TDF viewership (1st half 2007 TDF) = 219,779 households
France TDF viewership (Daily stage average over 3 weeks) = 4 million up to 5.3 million for the end of the stage
Germany viewership averages = 1.7 million
UK viewership averages = ~400,000

Shaking! I tell you!!


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Why then did they invite Slipstream? Oh, wait, they have two French riders!... nevermind.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> Doesn't this just make the Tour of Cali even closer to being THE premier cycling event on the planet???



Not! .... srsly. 

I am on a roll!


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*Here's an even BIGGER question...*

Why didn't Levi and co. go to a team with such controversy? They had to know with all the controversy, it was going to be a rough year.. Money? Levi ain't getting younger, this could've been his best chance ever.. So, what do these guys shoot for now, Vuelta?

I still say, why did Levi, Brunyll and co. go to Astana? Bruneyl could've retired with a smile, not a dark cloud like this will mark, Levi and co. could've participated in big events.. 

Levi should've known, where ever a OP rider goes, he shouldn't go.. Especially now that they focus on the teams, not the riders.. 

I really hate it for Levi and Horner.. The others, oh well..


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The problem I have with this is the same that has been touched on here. Astana is a sponsor, not the team itself. They had a huge amount of bad press last year and instead of pulling out, they cleaned house and installed the organization from the most successful Tour team in history, an organization that defined the Tour for the last decade.

Now that this sponsor has decided to continue to participate in cycling instead of putting their dollars somewhere else they are being punished? 

I think it was Unibet last year, Astana this year. ASO wants to try to show the UCI that they are in control. I wish the Teams would band together. The UCI is not adequately protecting them.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Well, it's their race so yes they can do whatever they want. Maybe they banned Astana because the name is what the general public remembers. We here know the team is different now, do every people that will watch the Tour and see the titles in the newspapers know? The name Astana is bad in a marketing point of view to ASO. Other factors, Contador is still an OP rider to most. ASO said a while ago that they wouldn't ban single riders but their team, in the current Team High Road, Cofidis and Rabo, what riders are suspect like Contador? And many people are convinced Johan had the best doping system and doesn't care about being clean, just not getting caught (with a whole bunch of former USPS/Discovery rider getting busted after they left the team and the hiring of Basso, Johan sure earned his bad reputation).

I don't think we should be surprised by this.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I've done a bit of research, and from what I can tell, the team 'Astana' is a group of businesses that actually own and sponsor the team. That did not change with the 'house cleaning', which then means that the team should be subject to punishment.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

I just posted in the other thread, but...

ASOs approach to Astana is completely fair. Since we don't know whether High Road, Rabobank or Cofidis will be invited yet, we can't say whether is is fair relative to their decisions regarding other teams (but yeah, probably only Astana will be excluded). The point is, Astana need a year to _prove _that they have changed. I don't think their change are enough given their past. It's worth remembering just how bad Astana were last year. They were patently a dirty team in their Liberty Seguros days in 2006, and it is now obvious that they didn't clean up one bit in 2007. Why should they be trusted now without a year of scandal free cycling to demonstrate that they have changed?


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

That was my thought too, punish the guilty, not the team who has started all over with people who weren't involved... But then again, Would Enron have gotten rid of anyone had they not been caught??? hard to say.

BTW guys - I knew that the ToC wasn't gonna compare to most ASO or Pro Tour events, I just wanna see the best biking on the planet here in the states.... Guess we'll have to wait, it's cold in Indiana right now, but this hell hasn't frozen over yet...


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Jokull said:


> I just posted in the other thread, but...
> 
> ASOs approach to Astana is completely fair. Since we don't know whether High Road, Rabobank or Cofidis will be invited yet, we can't say whether is is fair relative to their decisions regarding other teams (but yeah, probably only Astana will be excluded). The point is, Astana need a year to _prove _that they have changed. I don't think their change are enough given their past. It's worth remembering just how bad Astana were last year. They were patently a dirty team in their Liberty Seguros days in 2006, and it is now obvious that they didn't clean up one bit in 2007. Why should they be trusted now without a year of scandal free cycling to demonstrate that they have changed?


I would also add that one size does not fit all when it comes to punishment. Like it or not, there are different levels of doping, just like there are different levels of murder.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> That was my thought too, punish the guilty, not the team who has started all over with people who weren't involved... But then again, Would Enron have gotten rid of anyone had they not been caught??? hard to say.
> 
> BTW guys - I knew that the ToC wasn't gonna compare to most ASO or Pro Tour events, I just wanna see the best biking on the planet here in the states.... Guess we'll have to wait, it's cold in Indiana right now, but this hell hasn't frozen over yet...


The best cycling belongs in Europe, where all it's history has been created. That's not to say we can't have our own great races, however how can you compare to the "hell of the north", or Liege Bastogne Liege?

You can't with out a long and epic history.


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

Hmm, So a punishment to the team SPONSORS, is what that ASO was hoping to accomplish???


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

I agree that for the history of the sport is needs to stay in Europe...

But I still wanna push for the US to get better and at least to the point where the European Racers have to make a choice between Europe and the US... Right now, there ain't no choice, you wanna be the best... go to Belgium as a youngster and get into a development program... 

I see your point... But hopefully the American Racing will start to match up... That's all I was saying.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

Is predictor lotto the only team without a recent drug bust?


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Just saw the news flash on cn.com and i'm blown away by the TdF's arrogance and stupidity. Random thoughts:

1. The Giro's decision is distinguishable from the TdF's decision because -- as the Giro organizers admitted -- their decision was largely grounded in the fact that Bruyneel Giro teams historically have shown up with perceived weaker riders to save up their TdF riders -- see previous thread on this board -- so doping history was not dispositive in the Giro decision. Objectively speaking, I can't blame the Giro for excluding Astana, Johan had it coming to him hording up Kloden, Levi and Contador for the TdF.

2. As if the negative environment in pro cycling isn't bad enough, the ASO's decision to rule out Astana on all ASO events (!!!) will ABSOLUTELY cause any major sponsor to think three times before coming into the sport or renewing. Lance was right when he said in August/September 2007 that this is a bad time to sponsor cycling.

3. Forget Contador, Levi and Kloden have never tested positive for anything. The rest of the Astana roster also has never tested positive for anything. You have one rider based on speculation that is tied up in Puerto, fine then, throw him under the bus. But the others?

4. WHAT ABOUT COFIDIS??? A MULTIPLE OFFENDER????? "Oh, _notre merde _duss not stink, _monsieur_."

5. Might as well give that ceramic blue bowl to Cadel now. His closest competitor will be Menchov. The TdF will be a redux of the 2007 Vuelta. 

6. Contador now will do a lot of Spanish races and destroy at the Vuelta. He will get his turn in 2009 -- I would hope. But Levi . . . this is absolutely unfair -- but, oh, so very French!


----------



## artnshel (Jun 29, 2004)

slideeslide said:


> Drop a email to the ASO.
> 
> Mine is already sent to the following:
> 
> ...


Here's what I just sent to the following: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Dear ASO,
Your decision to exclude Team Astana is your right as the organizer. Please understand, I have the right as a consumer to boycott watching, purchasing your merchandise, and sending any of my money towards Le Tour as you have excluded last year first and third place finishers.

Dear Direct Tv,

The Versus Chanel here in the US used to be one of the most important channels that I get. Now I will no longer be watching any ASO controlled cycling races so I will not be spending many, many hours in front of my TV in July watching the Tour de France on Versus. If Versus didn't still have hockey I'd tell you that there was no need to keep them in your line up.

Dear Versus,

The value of one of your largest assets has fallen dramatically with the ASO's decision to exclude team Astana and several important American riders. If I were you I'd pressure the Tour to end their association with the ASO. 


Art ____________
Directv subscriber


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

Reconstituted roster. New management. Blackballing Astana is essentially a smack-down of the title sponsor, who may decide to pack up shop at season's end. The title sponsors are the financial engine of the sport. They need to feel somewhat secure in their investments or the cycling will be further marginalized.

We won't have a legitimate Tour winner for the past three years. The prestige of cycling's premier event is diminished. 

WTMF.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

artnshel said:


> Here's what I just sent to the following: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 
> Dear ASO,
> Your decision to exclude Team Astana is your right as the organizer. Please understand, I have the right as a consumer to boycott watching, purchasing your merchandise, and sending any of my money towards Le Tour as you have excluded last year first and third place finishers.
> ...


Francois put it as well as I reckon I could - 
_
I bet they are shaking in their boots!!

USA-Versus TDF viewership (1st half 2007 TDF) = 219,779 households
France TDF viewership (Daily stage average over 3 weeks) = 4 million up to 5.3 million for the end of the stage
Germany viewership averages = 1.7 million
UK viewership averages = ~400,000

Shaking! I tell you!!

_Less than 0.1% of the US population watched the Tour but 6.5% of France's watched!! That's 700 times the proportion!!


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

I couldn't be happier that they're barred. SOoooooo pleased.


----------



## allons-y (Nov 15, 2006)

artnshel said:


> If I were you I'd pressure the Tour to end their association with the ASO.


ASO = the tour.....


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

I'm totally cool with ASO's decision.. this is the only way to get the message across to the teams.

JB, AC, LL, etc.. were just retards to go to Astana. Especially JB, how can he be such a "genius" coach all these years and be so short sighted?

I'm sure their hiring of Basso, etc.. and history played a part in this. I'm sure the cloud over Contador didn't help either.

I'm just not seeing how Astana really cleaned house and proved that they'd implemented a program to keep the riders clean. It could just be a case of US media not covering Astana as much as say Slipstream.. but it sure doesn't sound like they'd done much.

High Road probably shouldn't get an invite IMO either.

Teams gotta take punishment when they let a doper get into the system. When more then one rider gets caught like Astana the penalty needs to be really, really harsh. If it's OK to Vino and Kaschekin to get kicked out of cycling for a while why shouldn't the system that let them dope get punished equally? This move will hit the backers of Astana in their wallets, they will have a greater interest in keeping their team clean in the future. Coaches and riders should know better then to sign with a team that's obviously got punishment coming their way.

Now if say LL who has not been connected with anything can figure out a way to jump ship away from Astana and get signed on another team for the season.. should he be allowed to compete? Sure IMO.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> I would also add that one size does not fit all when it comes to punishment. Like it or not, there are different levels of doping, just like there are different levels of murder.


Sorry, Einstruzende, I'm not buying your arguments.

The problem I have is that the decision is arbitrary - one size fits one. The rules are made up in a closed room and never revealed. Only the results of the rules, a team being banned, are revealed.

While ASO has the right to do business this way, it's still a bad way to do business. Their partners in the show, the teams and riders, have no method to deterimine their probability of participation. Therefore the sponsors don't know whether their investment has a chance at a return.

I don't know how the ownership of ASO works, but if it were a publicly-held US corporation, I'd think they would be at risk of a share-holder revolt and possible SEC sanctions. Opaque management technique (secret rules), apparently capricious decisions (rules unclear, applied to small minorities), failing to mazimize investor value (top competitors banned without strong reason), these things are not well received in the business world.

ASO has done a good job of acheiving strength in a weak environment, so they seem able to flex their muscles with impunity. If ANY of the other orgainizations, UCI, teams, riders, had any strength or even any gumption, ASO could be brought to their knees. A well-timed ProTour team boycott, or riders' strike, could severely impact their TV viewership (no, not just in the US, but in Europe, too). Throw in a decent PR campaign and ASO is deep trouble.

JSR


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

JB has been involved in a dopeing issue, he was the director who hired a OP implicatied Basso, he was out on a limb there are his fellow team directors were against the idea, i say he should take the blame fully for the loss/lack of new sponser. Will the other teams support him/astana. I doubt it very much, there have been votes to exclude Disco/JB from the pro tour teams organisation. Should the ASO ban teams who have been implicated in a drug issue. It is there race and as such they are the people who have to live the consequences. Is it posiable for the organiser to invite all the best teams but exclude the riders who have been implicated in the past. well they tried that but basso got resigned!! The tour has a great history and a short term loss may be what is needed to improve the product overall. 
Who can comprehensivly say they know who the first clean (not a rider who was not caught) rider in the past 10 or more tours was? If it were my race i would be tring everything and anything to make it the race it has been and can yet again be.

National teams?
or just invite the riders you want then have short term sponsers for the race. ( kills off all other races, but its a dog eat dog world)


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Some folks must not have read the whole thread, but unless I'm proven wrong, Astana is a case where the owners are the same people that sponsored the team. So you're not strictly punishing the sponsor, you are punishing the people that own the team.

I do believe it would have been different if the government of Astana had bought in all of Tailwind Sports, and were using the Tailwind Sports license. But they are not. They are using the same team and owner structure from last year. Only Brunyeel and below have changed.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

slowdave said:


> ..
> 
> National teams?
> or just invite the riders you want then have short term sponsers for the race. ( kills off all other races, but its a dog eat dog world)


There is another thread here where I mentioned that I'd like to see national teams in the Tour again. A large part of the Tours history is from those days. 

(It's the "2008 TdF Rule Change" thread)


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

Einstruzende said:


> Some folks must not have read the whole thread, but unless I'm proven wrong, Astana is a case where the owners are the same people that sponsored the team. So you're not strictly punishing the sponsor, you are punishing the people that own the team.
> 
> I do believe it would have been different if the government of Astana had bought in all of Tailwind Sports, and were using the Tailwind Sports license. But they are not. They are using the same team and owner structure from last year. Only Brunyeel and below have changed.


I agree whole heartedly, I was responding to the above posts that JB has never been involved in a doping issue. I agree with punishment for the astana team/license holders. The riders who have swoped teams are the "victims" in this, however thay are also big boys and had i repeat had to have known that an exclusion was posiable, unibet i feel was harshly treated, but astana well.....


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

I think it's foolish for the ASO to think that they or Le Tour are invincible. These kind of shenanigans really do open the door for things like a Tour of America.



philippec said:


> I bet they are shaking in their boots!!
> 
> USA-Versus TDF viewership (1st half 2007 TDF) = 219,779 households
> France TDF viewership (Daily stage average over 3 weeks) = 4 million up to 5.3 million for the end of the stage
> ...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

The Idea that Astana is a "New" Or "Changed" team is absurd. 

Kahsekin is actively training with the Astana development team. Nikolai Proskurin, Kazakh cycling federation president, made sure that Vino only received a one year ban...even thought the rules says he should get two. Proskurin is who put the team together, the people who where in charge of the $$$ last year are the same as this year.

Add to this two riders who connections to organize doping is very strong, Contador and Kloden, and a DS whose dirty history speaks for itself.

Someone in cycling needs to stand up and make a stand. It needs to be made clear that the old culture is not going to fly anymore.

Bravo to the ASO for having the guts that the UCI and the teams are lacking.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

jorgy said:


> I think it's foolish for the ASO to think that they or Le Tour are invincible. These kind of shenanigans really do open the door for things like a Tour of America.


What? The Tour de France and the Tour of America do not belong in the same sentence. That is like comparing Serie A or the Premireship to your local soccer club


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

blackhat said:


> I've got no problem with this. I think the stated reason by itself is a bit weak-this ain't last years astana-. But in combination with the accountant's problems and the striking similarity of 08 astana to 07 disco, it's in keeping with a sport trying to turn the page. Had astana not hired johan they probably wouldn't have this problem but they probably wouldn't have levi and the acct, fwiw.


I think this goes all the way back to Libery Seguros. The way I understand it, Astana is being punished for getting it’s hand caught in the cookie jar the second time. After it’s ban as Liberty Seguros in 2006 for involvement in Operation Puerto. They were allowed back into the tour in 2007 as Astana, a "new team". Lo and behold, another doping scandal. This is a case of “fool me once…” So, ASO isn't buying the whole we’re a new team line again. They took a risk on Astana & got burn the first time, and now they’re gun shy.


----------



## optimieron (May 27, 2007)

Three things:

Somebody mentioned it earlier but it still is ASO's game or playground and they can see fit on how they want to run the game or not. ASO, in a business sense, have a "product" and want to control it's image it in whatever means they feel that they should - right or wrong. Thus far they have kept people tuning in to their event in this modern media-rich world. Or - if this action is just a case of cycling politics which I am sure that some part of this action is represented by, then they can see fit to take that risk as well. Look at the publicity they have received today alone. Some news is better than no news. A lot of people love Le Tour for it's tradition, not remembering the particular riders or teams who were excluded - you find the stories within the race whoever participates. There was an article written last year that showed that it is the pursuit of the yellow jersey not in-fact the pursuers that "Le Tour" sells.

Second, every year there is some foreshadowing of what to expect during the summer for cycling. Two year's ago there was information regarding Operation Puerto and Basso and Ulrich. Last year it was hints of Rasmussen missing controls. I believe that with Operation Puerto re-opening along with UCI and WADA active in pursuing riders there will be a major announcement (read very bad news) surrounding either Contador, Bruyneel or Discovery. I just think that ASO has had a little bit of a head's up or is more in the loop this year or has their hand's in the game themselves surrounding news to come out.

Finally, don't you think that any smart cyclist or agent of a cyclist like Contador or Leipheimer or especially Klodi would include in their contract a clause that allows for them to take appropriate actions if they were not in the the Tour? That is, if they wanted to be. Doing well in the Tour pays financial dividends to these riders. Non-participation could seriously hampers their financial well-being. Or they are just happy taking the money this year and sitting out of most of the races? The big riders are being well compensated so why not have a quiet year this year and take the money and wait until next year. Nobody is accusing them of seriously doping yet. Just being on the wrong team at the wrong time, much like Unibet.

M.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

benInMA said:


> I'm totally cool with ASO's decision.. this is the only way to get the message across to the teams.
> 
> JB, AC, LL, etc.. were just retards to go to Astana. Especially JB, how can he be such a "genius" coach all these years and be so short sighted?
> 
> ...


I completely agree. Is their decision fair? Well no, its not fair, but its the only way to get the message across to teams. 

Cycling has reached such a point where it isn't good enough anymore for a team to switch managers, bring in new riders, etc. We need more than that, and this is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Jett said:


> I think this goes all the way back to Libery Seguros. The way I understand it, Astana is being punished for get it’s hand caught in the cookie the second time. After it’s ban as Liberty Seguros in 2006 for involvement in Operation Puerto. They were allowed back into the tour in 2007 as Astana, a "new team". Lo and behold, another doping scandal. This is a case of “fool me once…” So, ASO isn't buying the whole we’re a new team line again. They took a risk on Astana & got burn the first time, and now they’re gun shy.


That about sums it up for me. Plus, bigpinkt's point about the fact that it certainly isn't a _complete _overhaul is also true - there's plenty of the old Astana still knocking around this setup...


----------



## twiggy (Mar 23, 2004)

bas said:


> Is predictor lotto the only team without a recent drug bust?


\
Nope, they had one too.....remember the guy that blamed his high testocerone levels on having sex immediately before the doping control?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> and a DS whose dirty history speaks for itself.


Huh? I'm looking through his history and I don't see anything.


----------



## twiggy (Mar 23, 2004)

I really don't see why the riders are being punished for their team's past mistakes...if someone in your family murders someone, should your whole family be thrown in jail?

The real losers here are Levi and Kloden IMHO....Levi was just reaching his potential after a few years of letdowns at the tour, and Kloden has been a magnet for bad luck for the past 5 years or so....I almost wouldn't be surprised if he announced his retirement now!


----------



## optimieron (May 27, 2007)

*Also ...*



Jokull said:


> That about sums it up for me. Plus, bigpinkt's point about the fact that it certainly isn't a _complete _overhaul is also true - there's plenty of the old Astana still knocking around this setup...


Johann Bruyneel is suspect himself. People in the cycling community no longer like him like they once did. Back then (USPS/Discovery) it was OK that he was winning but I think near the end he fell out of favour with the ASO and the French. He originally brought lots of revenue and increased exposure to Le Tour but now I think politically they have it in for him.

M.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Huh? I'm looking through his history and I don't see anything.


Then you are either not really looking or intentionally ignoring


----------



## optimieron (May 27, 2007)

As mentioned earlier, I am hoping that Levi and Klodi have a clause in their contract that allows them out of this team mid-season given somewhat foreseeable events like this. Not likely that another team will pick them up but riders and their agents shop themselves around all the time, even during the season.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

optimieron said:


> Johann Bruyneel is suspect himself. People in the cycling community no longer like him like they once did. Back then (USPS/Discovery) it was OK that he was winning but I think near the end he fell out of favour with the ASO and the French. He originally brought lots of revenue and increased exposure to Le Tour but now I think politically they have it in for him.
> 
> M.


Yeah, but that's a court of public opinion thing, I agree with ASO's actions, but they certainly couldn't use the presence of Johan Bruyneel as a reason for barring Astana (its not like they need to, there are plenty of other reasons).


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

The case around Brunyeel's former teams is circumstantial. Take it as you will...

Several of their big riders leave the team, and the get busted for doping. Hamilton, Heras, Landis. So are we to believe that they 'rode clean for USPS and saw you could win that way', then decided to leave and dope?

Or is it a case of doing the same thing they've always done, only in a different system?

I know which I believe.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Einstruzende said:


> The case around Brunyeel's former teams is circumstantial. Take it as you will...
> 
> Several of their big riders leave the team, and the get busted for doping. Hamilton, Heras, Landis. So are we to believe that they 'rode clean for USPS and saw you could win that way', then decided to leave and dope?
> 
> ...


I think I believe the same thing as you, but since the evidence is only circumstancial, it isn't really relevant to any decision that ASO have made - they cannot cite this evidence to support their decision to bar Astana. Like I just said though, they don't need to go looking for extra reasons, there are plenty of legitimate ones.


----------



## optimieron (May 27, 2007)

Bruyneel is drawing too much attention to himself. He has a big target on his back and the cycling organizations want to see him caught. He should realize that he served his purpose in the "grander scheme of things" and he should take his money and get out for a while. Bruyneel hasn't made many friends of late. Time to have a low profile. He should follow your friend Lance - at least he made his money and left the sport at the right time.


----------



## Dank (Nov 26, 2006)

Cyclings not killing cycling, its the media thats killing cycling. Just let the past go, start over. And lets just race our bikes and smile. Every team has a drugy on it. Ban them all. Who cares. Its a bike race. Look at baseball, they all do drugs and they still play. Do you think football players got that big by just working out? Thats funny. Are they banning any of these teams? Thats funny too. ASO= There loss.
Einstruzende, what team do you race for and will your team be in the TDF?


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

jorgy said:


> These kind of shenanigans really do open the door for things like a Tour of America.


Bring it on!








:::::: crickets chirping :::::


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

I wasn't "comparing" them. You seem to have missed the point of my post.

I just think it's foolish for the ASO to believe Le Tour is invincible. Plenty of seemingly ironclad organizations have fallen because of poor management. If Le Tour stumbles--say it is boycotted by a number of ProTour teams--it opens the door for something else.



bigpinkt said:


> What? The Tour de France and the Tour of America do not belong in the same sentence. That is like comparing Serie A or the Premireship to your local soccer club


----------



## optimieron (May 27, 2007)

*True ...*

You need more concrete reasons to ban a team even if you are the ASO and it is your race and you set the rules but events will get much worse for Bruyneel and friends before they possibly could get better. I have the feeling that this is the tip of the iceberg so to speak. We still have about 5 months before the Tour starts and there will be some "convenient" news occurring in the lead-up to this event. 2008 is not looking to be a good year at all. Bruyneel should have read his fortune for this year and laid low for a little while longer.

M.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Dank said:


> ...
> Einstruzende, what team do you race for and will your team be in the TDF?


I fail to see how the fact that I'm not a racer makes my opinion invalid. Please try again. No one has a right to race in the tour, as Astana has found out. It just so happens I agree with their decision, for my own (admitted) bias.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Then you are either not really looking or intentionally ignoring


Show me the evidence I am ignoring.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Dank said:


> Cyclings not killing cycling, its the media thats killing cycling. Just let the past go, start over. And lets just race our bikes and smile. Every team has a drugy on it. Ban them all. Who cares. Its a bike race. Look at baseball, they all do drugs and they still play. Do you think football players got that big by just working out? Thats funny. Are they banning any of these teams? Thats funny too. ASO= There loss.



In this country you have Republican Congressmen acting as prosecutors and publicly defending Roger Clemens on national TV. 

Why punish dopers in American sports? They are defending them!

:mad2:


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

fornaca68 said:


> but, oh, so very French!


This is NOT about the French people but two smucks who want to rule the world of cyclign and don't give a CRAP about the sport itself. That's like blaming "American's" for "W." 

Cleric and Prudhomme are just a bunch of a$$es!


----------



## Bianchi67 (Oct 16, 2005)

I agree with ASO.

Let's all remember the team's current history.
2005 Liberty Seguros -> Heras' Vuelta title is removed two months after finish for failed test on final TT

2006 LS / Saiz/ and OP overshadows Tour start.

2007 Astana / Vino's multiple failed tests at the Tour, plus others test positive.

Let's say you own a company and throw a big party every year and invite a bunch of clients or customers from other companies. Two years ago a guy from ABC company jumps up on the food table and pees all over the food before the bouncers can throw him out. Last year a different guy from EFG company (previously known as ABC before merger) beats up the bartender. You also heard that a couple other employees of EFG trashed some other parties.

Are you going to invite anyone from that company this year? No effin way.

ASO has only had to invite all the ProTour teams since in PT started in 2005. Before that, they invited whom ever they wanted. Based on the success of the Tour over the past century, think they knew who should get the invite.

Maybe if Astana is really good this year without any problems, then next year they might be invited back. Teams need to be punished as much as the riders. It would be naive to think that every dude out there is acting only.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

jorgy said:


> These kind of shenanigans really do open the door for things like a Tour of America.


LAMO! You really think that?

Maybe the Giro could take over if they do things right. Why not? It's been around just as long. Cycling heart and passion is HUGE in Italy and maybe the soul of biking. The country is just as beautiful, etc.

So the TDF has been around a bit longer and is percived as the biggest race. That's easy to fix. The Giro markets itself as THE race and they get teams to believe it's now THE race. If teams make it *their *priority it will be come the biggest race of the season. It's not ASO or France that makes that race. It's the riders making it the biggest race, the media and the FANS. The Giro get the riders, media, sponsors and fans to change their attitude and it's basically a done deal.

A Tour of America will never sniff the level of success of the TDF in this country in our lifetime. It would take a complete turnaround i this countries thinking.

The real GT BELONG in Europe.


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

LMAO at some of the justifications for this decision. This is not about justice or fairness in the least, rather it's all about marketing. European fans and sponsors with big exposure to those fans is all that matters here. It's well known that those fans overwhelmingly believe that anything to do with USPS is the incarnation of evil. It doesn't help that they've associated themselves with the villianous Vino and Kach show either. These guys are just the huge losers of a popularity contest. The ASO has created a nicely wrapped story having to do with doping to pander to their main audience. JB's and Astana's big mistake is that they didn't just rename the team and change the uniforms like High Road did. To ASO this a knee-jerk reaction to save the precious image of the TDF in the eyes a doping weary fan base.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

jorgy said:


> I wasn't "comparing" them. You seem to have missed the point of my post.
> 
> I just think it's foolish for the ASO to believe Le Tour is invincible. Plenty of seemingly ironclad organizations have fallen because of poor management. If Le Tour stumbles--say it is boycotted by a number of ProTour teams--it opens the door for something else.


It would be poor management if the ASO did nothing. It they sat by and let the dopers, and their teams, continue to do business the old fashion way.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2008)

I will have to say I support ASO on their decision, it is a shame that some of Astana's riders won't be able to participate but I do hope this forces a change in the Pro Tour currently in place. I can't see forgiving the disaster that was Astana at last years tour no matter what changes were made.

I don't think the Grand Tours and monuments of the sport are in trouble, I for one would rather watch the Tour or Roubaix with nothing but continental teams riding than be bored to death watching the Pro Tour teams on their endless race calendar of "The Three Day Tour of Nowhere".


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> It would be poor management if the ASO did nothing. It they sat by and let the dopers, and their teams, continue to do business the old fashion way.


You're totally, totally right. That's why ASO was correct in not just barring Astana but also barring Cofidis (multi-year offender, same management) and T-Mobile/High Road (confessions galore, Patrik Sinkewitz, same management) from the 2008 TdF. ASO knows exactly what it's doing. :idea:


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2008)

Cofidis was banned as well? A french team, curious...

Anyone know what was up with Cofidis at the Tour of Q? The Doha team and Iran were more of a factor than they were at times.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Show me the evidence I am ignoring.


Johann achieved his greatest success as a rider on Team Once, a team managed by Manolo Saiz of OP fame. During his time at the team ONCE had one of the most advanced team doping programs in cycling. The ONCE doping program was run by Dr. Nicolas Terrados and José Aramendi. Terrados was later convicted of trafficking in PED and guess where Aramendi ended up??? Yes, thats right Johann brought him to USPS along with other ONCE doping doctors, De Moral and Celaya 

Zulle said at the time about his use of EPO “The first time I was riding for the Spanish team ONCE. This practice of using EPO operated in the same way and I can say that the twenty or so riders consumed EPO under the control of Drs [Nicholas] Terrados and another one called José [Aramendi].”

According to Zulle, amongst others, riders on ONCE had access to a wide variety of PED's. There was one rider on ONCE who consumed more then the rest, one who's consumption of PED's was so large that he earned the nickname "The Hog"....This rider was Johann Bruyneel.

this is just his early years, I can go on and on but I am sure you will ignore that as well


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

GearDaddy said:


> JB's and Astana's big mistake is that they didn't just rename the team and change the uniforms like High Road did. To ASO this a knee-jerk reaction to save the precious image of the TDF in the eyes a doping weary fan base.


I wonder???? If Astana team changed their name, would they have still beeen banned? Team High Crap is the SAME team. They were the biggest dopers on the scence beside the OLD Astana.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> You're totally, totally right. That's why ASO was correct in not just barring Astana but also barring Cofidis (multi-year offender, same management) and T-Mobile/High Road (confessions galore, Patrik Sinkewitz, same management) from the 2008 TdF. ASO knows exactly what it's doing. :idea:


The Cofidis affair was 5 years ago and the team has made huge changes since then. Not enough as Moreni was caught last year, but still huge changes.

High Road has completely different management, it has let go of of tainted riders like Kloden, Gonchar, Ulrich, etc. They let go of the doctors who ran the team doping program and signed up with ACE.

Compare this with the actions of of Bruyneel. When Ulrich and Basso had very similar evidence against them in OP what happened? T-Mobile fired Ulrich and Johann hired Basso....even if that was against the rules of the teams.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Ok, perhaps the ASO wants Astana to prove themselves that they have truly changed in terms of the doping since they brought in an entire group of new staff and implemented a new doping control measure as CSC has.

Perhaps if this year, everything goes well on Astana and they tear up the races they enter and all come out clean, then the ASO would invite them again next year. 

One thing I can tell is that the Vuelta would be a little more contested for sure this year and Astana would definitely rip it up with all their GC riders. Kloden, Leipheimer, Contador and even Brajkovic. 4 in the top 10 is highly a possibility I guess given that the Vuelta would be the only major stage race they can compete in. 

Also, this exclusion from all ASO events would mean the team would miss more races for sure (not sure which races are ASO events but I'm thinking Paris-Nice and such would also be missed perhaps. I was only familiar with the Pro Tour system where Pro Tour Races meant a mandatory participation from all pro tour liscenced teams.)

I'm just saying here, why the ASO is not doing really doing anything about the Cofidis team. Coz they are all french? As long as there is no action towards Cofidis, I find it hard to accept the ASO is being just and not just a bunch of whiny French masochistic nationalistic biased [email protected] 

What punishment is given to Cofidis? That's what I wanna know. Forget Rabbo and such. Also, what about one or 2 other teams maybe that have had dirty records as well?

If these teams are punished as well, then yes, I would not feel so strongly about this issue (not because I like the riders but more on equal and just punishment as well as an equal standardized scheme)

Are former dirty riders banned? Screw Vino and Kascheskin. They should be punished to perform anti drug talks for 5 years to kids, teens and others. 

I guess that it is probably a tad unfair to the Astana riders since they are 'clean' ("clean" as in, never tested positive. Well, this seems the only way to define a clean rider for now at least since those who get caught are definitely cheating [email protected] but at least those who never get caught are well, 'perceived clean'. Don't go on about this not being an indicator of cleanliness coz for Christ's sake this seems to be the only way to tell if a rider is clean or not for now : Caught = cheater. No positive = clean. You can't argue with this for now at least) and it's unfortunate that they are punished despite their clean record all their careers (Not Contador and Kloden coz they have more links than the other riders).

I guess they are paying the price their team got in into before. Too bad Astana did not change management TOTALLY I guess but if they did, across the whole board and just kept their name, would they still be banned? I think so.

But, what if they did what they already did, but change their whole staff as well including those unchanged now, and got a new team name? Would they then be invited? Or, what if they did what they did right now and just changed their name?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

uzziefly said:


> Also, this exclusion from all ASO events would mean the team would miss more races for sure (not sure which races are ASO events but I'm thinking Paris-Nice and such would also be missed perhaps.


yeah, they just got kicked out of <i>a lot</i> of races. from joe lindsey's <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/">blog</a>:

"you can scratch off the following events from Astana’s hoped-for calendar, in chronological order: Paris-Nice, Criterium Internationale, Paris-Roubaix, Fleche Wallonne, Liege-Bastogne-Liege and Paris-Tours, in addition to the Tour de France. Astana is also uninvited to the Giro d’Italia; it remains to be seen whether the team will get invites to other RCS-promoted events but, if not, scratch Milano-San Remo and the Tour of Lombardy. In all, between 8 and 10 of the 27 events that made up the 2007 ProTour calendar are now off limits to them, including the biggest and best races. Sheesh, what’s left? The Eindhoven Team Time Trial and the Tour of Poland? Rock on."


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> The Cofidis affair was 5 years ago and the team has made huge changes since then. Not enough as Moreni was caught last year, but still huge changes.
> 
> High Road has completely different management, it has let go of of tainted riders like Kloden, Gonchar, Ulrich, etc. They let go of the doctors who ran the team doping program and signed up with ACE.
> 
> Compare this with the actions of of Bruyneel. When Ulrich and Basso had very similar evidence against them in OP what happened? T-Mobile fired Ulrich and Johann hired Basso....even if that was against the rules of the teams.


1. Cofidis is a repeat offender. Let's not forget that, and same management. Let's also not forget they're a French team.

2. High Road in 2008 has the SAME management as 2007 and yet Sinkewitz slips through the cracks and Gonchar registers a stinky hematocrit level, all in 2007. 

3. What about Bruyneel? Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that not A SINGLE ONE of his team members (since 1998!!) has tested positive for anything. 

4. Nobody signed Ullrich because his own cycling federation NEVER cleared him, unlike Basso who was cleared by CONI when Puerto was shelved. As soon as CONI decided to re-open the investigation and Basso begins to sing, what does Bruyneel do? He tells Basso to hit the bricks. 

5. Not a single Astana rider has been involved in a doping scandal (Contador by speculation is the closest, and Prudhomme today said Conti is free to ride if he were with another team), so the Astana riders are not the issue. That leaves the management and operations of the team left to attack for 2007's sins. Yet 2008 management and staff are DIFFERENT from 2007, just the same lead sponsor. Even the technical sponsors are different (Trek, SRAM).

6. Conclusion: Prudhomme's decision reeks like a landfill.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Let's see if RCS moves in for the kill. M-SR is 2 weeks away.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> I wonder???? If Astana team changed their name, would they have still beeen banned? Team High Crap is the SAME team. They were the biggest dopers on the scence beside the OLD Astana.


I was wondering the same thing today. I'm sure if Johan could do it again he would have asked the sponsor to use the name "BORAT" or something innocuous. Changing the team colors would have been a good move too.


----------



## Dank (Nov 26, 2006)

Is CSC going to be at the TDF? No dopers there. What about High Road, none there either. What about Rabobank, I'm almost positive no one has doped there.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> 1. Cofidis is a repeat offender. Let's not forget that, and same management. Let's also not forget they're a French team.


They were five years between issues. Moreni was clear that no body on the team had any idea that he was using.



fornaca68 said:


> 2. High Road in 2008 has the SAME management as 2007 and yet Sinkewitz slips through the cracks and Gonchar registers a stinky hematocrit level, all in 2007.


High Road cleaned house in 2007, that is why they still have a chance to get in. Gonchar was caught by their own internal controls, how many teams have done that? Sinkewitz also said that there was no organized doping on the team 



fornaca68 said:


> 3. What about Bruyneel? Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that not A SINGLE ONE of his team members (since 1998!!) has tested positive for anything.


You are kidding right? The "Never tested postive" mantra holds no water. Ulrich and Basso never tested positive. Johann showed what side of the doping war he was on when he hired Basso



fornaca68 said:


> 4. Nobody signed Ullrich because his own cycling federation NEVER cleared him, unlike Basso who was cleared by CONI when Puerto was shelved. As soon as CONI decided to re-open the investigation and Basso begins to sing, what does Bruyneel do? He tells Basso to hit the bricks.


Wrong, in fact Ullrich was under the Swiss Federation which has yet to sanction him. Because of the obvious evidence against Basso the Pro Tour teams all voted not to hire him or anyone else involved in Puerto...so Bruyneel hires 3 OP riders. smart move




fornaca68 said:


> 5. Not a single Astana rider has been involved in a doping scandal (Contador by speculation is the closest, and Prudhomme today said Conti is free to ride if he were with another team), so the Astana riders are not the issue. That leaves the management and operations of the team left to attack for 2007's sins. Yet 2008 management and staff are DIFFERENT from 2007, just the same lead sponsor. Even the technical sponsors are different (Trek, SRAM).


in addition to Contador you forget about Kloden. T-Mobile let him go because they knew he would not operate in their new, clean, system. Kahsekin is actively training with the Astana development team. Nikolai Proskurin, Kazakh cycling federation president, made sure that Vino only received a one year ban...even thought the rules says he should get two. Proskurin is who put the team together, the people who where in charge of the $$$ last year are the same as this year.

So far the ASO is the only group willing to do what is good for the sport


----------



## rayn (Dec 4, 2006)

Bust 'em 
Book 'em Danno

somethin smells like bacon

Nobodys innocent till proven guilty for a year or two????

Gee I wonder why we get called "road nazis"


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Because a rider says they acted alone and nobody knew is not a reason to believe them. Doctors help these guys dope. To date I have never heard of a caught rider saying anything to implicate the team they were riding for or the team they rode for most recently. Jorg Jasche comes to mind. The guy is an admitted carreer doper until his last teams (CSC and Liberty) where he rode strongly but didn't dope?

If Astana is out, then High Road and Cofidis (both with confirmed positives) must be out in order for ASO to maintain any credibility. Otherwise what they are doing can't be viewed as a positive action against doping (the current Astana program has a new anti doping program in place) just a vendetta against a team organization that has dominated their race for most of the last decade.

Funny how they've never had any problem allowing Virenque and Moreau into their races.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

davidka said:


> Because a rider says they acted alone and nobody knew is not a reason to believe them. Doctors help these guys dope. To date I have never heard of a caught rider saying anything to implicate the team they were riding for or the team they rode for most recently. Jorg Jasche comes to mind. The guy is an admitted carreer doper until his last teams (CSC and Liberty) where he rode strongly but didn't dope?
> 
> If Astana is out, then High Road and Cofidis (both with confirmed positives) must be out in order for ASO to maintain any credibility. Otherwise what they are doing can't be viewed as a positive action against doping (the current Astana program has a new anti doping program in place) just a vendetta against a team organization that has dominated their race for most of the last decade.
> 
> Funny how they've never had any problem allowing Virenque and Moreau into their races.


Indeed my point as I have stated several times.

ASO is all bull and childish in their vendetta pursuit if they only bar Astana.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

*Purely political decision.*

I've been reading through the 100 or so posts and some of you may have touched upon this. 
ASO's decision may be a purely political one. Meaning, don't try to find any logic in it.
Here are some (political) reasons for excluding Astana.

1) That greedy b_st_rd (meaning JB)! Aren't 8 of the last 9 TdF's enough? Now he want's a 9th? 

2) We're the ASO we'll stick it to the UCI. We'll exclude 1 and 3 from the 2007 podium and still not suffer in ratings.

3) We thought we got rid of JB when Disco folded. Now he's back. Same core plus super domestique Kloden. Can you imagine a 2008 podium where Astana (Disco reborn) occupies positions 1-2-3?

Pick any or all of the above reasons add your own and you may be on to something. 
Try to reason this out and you may never get to the bottom.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Jorg Jasche comes to mind. The guy is an admitted carreer doper until his last teams (CSC and Liberty) where he rode strongly but didn't dope?


Jorg Jaksche said that both CSC and Liberty (Astana) had organized doping programs



davidka said:


> Funny how they've never had any problem allowing Virenque and Moreau into their races.


This is incorrect. Moreau was ejected from the tour and was only allowed to race again after serving his suspension and summiting to the French Longitudinal controls.

The treatment of Virengue was far harsher. He was also kicked out of the race. He continued to deny (lie) that he ever doped, and as he never tested positive (sound familer?). he was able to continue racing in non ASO races. Before the 99 tour the ASO announced that he was not allowed to race, but was forced to accept him by the UCI. 

He later admitted doping, using the pathetic "à l'insu de mon plein gré" ("of my own free will but without knowing") excuse. After his suspension the UCI once again forced the ASO to let him race.

It is good to see the ASO has broken free from the UCI and can make their own decisions.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

From his website.




Johan Bruyneel said:


> That the happenings of last year in Tour de France, prompted the Tour organizers to leave Astana out of the season's most important race, sounds understandable. However, Astana Cycling Team 2008 has nothing to do with the team of last year. We have done everything to change the dynamics of the team. New management, new riders, new philosophy. Only the name of the sponsor remained. The Kazakh authorities gave me "carte blanche" to run the team. No pressure was put on us, there was no demand for big wins. We are spending 460,000 Euros on internal anti-doping efforts for 2008. What more can we do? The fact that UCI accorded us a ProTour license proved that our new system functioned well. Maybe that is a part of the problem. Is Astana this year a victim of the war between UCI and ASO?"


More:



johan bruyneel said:


> What is strange," says Bruyneel, "is that ASO does not invite us because of the past of a team that had the same name. Many other teams, with a similar suspicious past, that did not change management or structure, can participate without problems. Where is the consistency? Is the Tour de France not losing all credibility now?"


I totally agree with this point and it's what I've been trying to reiterate. 

Also:



> ASO asked us in December for open communication. We communicated a lot but never got a reply. ASO probably has the right to not invite us", continued Bruyneel. "They want to augment the credibility of their races after the happenings of last year. Unfortunately, the Tour de France will now lose much of its credibility by not letting some of the world's best riders participate, even those who were never were implied in doping scandals. The name of Alberto Contador was sometimes linked to the famous "Operation Puerto" affair. A Spanish judge cleared him. Even afterwards, Alberto was always available to the justice authorities to give required information. He really has nothing to do with that sad affair."


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

uzziefly said:


> "is that ASO does not invite us because of the past of a team that had the same name



Good spin by Johann, looks like he does not want anyone to think that it by hiring him Astana hurt their chances even more then they already were.

The same people are in charge at Astana as last year, add Johann to the mix and you have a toxic combination.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Good spin by Johann, looks like he does not want anyone to think that it by hiring him Astana hurt their chances even more then they already were.
> 
> The same people are in charge at Astana as last year, add Johann to the mix and you have a toxic combination.


They changed their management so how is it the same people?

Other directors have PROVEN dopers on their team and several times too but at LEAST Johan's riders have never been tested positive - the only way to determine clean riders now it seems coz yes, I know you and others would say never tested positive means nothing but if that's the case, then how much worse is testing positive since it's a DEFINITE that they dope???

At LEAST the riders from USPS and Disco have NEVER been tested positive so yes, call it good doping program, call it good $ paid to doctors and officials or call it whatever the hell anyone wants but the fact remains that their riders have all never tested positive while on the team. In contrast, other riders have riders testing positive all the time so in retrospect, this make THEM dirty (of course) and their directors too. 

Riis is one. Cofidis' directeur sportif is another. And so on.

And, they have implemented a good anti doping policy in the team ala CSC's system. 

CSC has riders who never tested positive so does it mean they are dirty too? No, coz they are not proven at least and given the pathetic state the sport is in now, it's the ONLY way to have credibility - having a good anti doping program and not have your riders test positive. 

Do they dope still? Maybe, probably. But at LEAST they are NOT positive.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

uzziefly said:


> They changed their management so how is it the same people?
> 
> Other directors have PROVEN dopers on their team and several times too but at LEAST Johan's riders have never been tested positive - the only way to determine clean riders now it seems coz yes, I know you and others would say never tested positive means nothing but if that's the case, then how much worse is testing positive since it's a DEFINITE that they dope???
> 
> ...


Never tested positive does not mean anything anymore, ask Ulrich and Basso

The foundation of the team is the same as last year....only worse with Johann's addition. Kahsekin is actively training with the Astana development team. Nikolai Proskurin, Kazakh cycling federation president, made sure that Vino only received a one year ban...even thought the rules says he should get two. Proskurin is who put the team together, the people who where in charge of the $$$ last year are the same as this year.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> Jorg Jaksche said that both CSC and Liberty (Astana) had organized doping programs
> 
> Did he? I don't recall him talking about CSC but I admit I didn't follow it that closely. If he did, how is it that CSC is allowed to enter races? Many of the riders are still there. An admission by a rider implicating the team would place every single rider on the team under suspicion.
> 
> ...


 Whatever, they're both known dopers which places them under suspicion (especially Moreau since he's only gotten better) and therefore should not be allowed to race.

What I'm obviously getting at is that all riders at the top level can have a case for suspicion leveled against them at any time. ASO singling out Astana is thin and shallow to anyone looking on. 

How is Slipstream supposed to get an invite? Vaughters raced for JB/USPS too. If anything you pointed about JB is true(source?) then Vaughters had to have been a doper too.

ASO's decisions are making them look biased and foolish. The Tour is only the biggest race when the best competition is present. I ask again, what happened to the rule that states that the past year's winner gets an automatic invite?

Pro Cycling needs to move to America. Guilt must be proven here.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Whatever, they're both known dopers which places them under suspicion (especially Moreau since he's only gotten better) and therefore should not be allowed to race.


That is a long list that does not start or end with Moreau


davidka said:


> What I'm obviously getting at is that all riders at the top level can have a case for suspicion leveled against them at any time. ASO singling out Astana is thin and shallow to anyone looking on.


The problem is when the sport is changing guys like Johann refuse to. Remember all the Protour team voted to not hire riders from OP, Johann went and hired Basso and two others. He sent a very clear message of which side of the doping war he was on


davidka said:


> How is Slipstream supposed to get an invite? Vaughters raced for JB/USPS too. If anything you pointed about JB is true(source?) then Vaughters had to have been a doper too.


Yes he was a doper, if you ever meet him ask him. He will tell all you need to know about how things worked at USPS. JV has made a clear break from the old ways. Johann has not



davidka said:


> ASO's decisions are making them look biased and foolish.


To you. Many fans in Europe, the heart of the sport, this is exactly the right move.



davidka said:


> I ask again, what happened to the rule that states that the past year's winner gets an automatic invite?


This rule does not exist



davidka said:


> Pro Cycling needs to move to America. Guilt must be proven here.


In America you also have "Freedom of association" If you are putting on a party you can invite whoever you want. If you don't want dopers who embarrass you in front of your neighbors then you do not have to let them into your party.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> Pro Cycling needs to move to America. Guilt must be proven here.


maybe if ASO was a law enforcement body. it's not. they could freely pick and choose who to invite to their party on our shores, just as they do on their own.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

JB's involvement in doping is purely speculation. If it's there why no positives? All this speculation about JB and he and his teams have been under the brightest spotlight and under the most stringent testing the UCI can muster for a decade and no positives. Why won't Vaughters testify in court about it?

It is just as easy to counter that JB did not hire anyone involved in OP. The case was closed and Basso was cleared by CONI. Many riders reported to be on that list remained on their protour teams and continued racing. Again, where is the standard? What are the definitions?

Those of us that are frustrated by all this are so because the ASO and UCI continue to make it up as they go along. The sponsors deserve a more defined criteria so that they can enter the sport with realistic expectations. No sponsors, no sport.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> JB's involvement in doping is purely speculation.


While you may dismiss it Zulle's sworn testimony and Johann hiring the ONCE doping doctors is not speculation.



davidka said:


> If it's there why no positives? All this speculation about JB and he and his teams have been under the brightest spotlight and under the most stringent testing the UCI can muster for a decade and no positives.


Operation Puerto, the Festina affair, made it clear, the testing means little. Basso, Ulrich, Tim Montgomery, Marion Jones, Kayle Leogrande...the list is long of dopers who never tested positive.



davidka said:


> Why won't Vaughters testify in court about it?


JV had said many times that he was "No Angel" who "Made Mistakes" he has also made it clear that his time at CA was clean and the "mistakes" were earlier at USPS. He is clearly trying to atone for his past transgressions with Slipstream.



davidka said:


> It is just as easy to counter that JB did not hire anyone involved in OP. The case was closed and Basso was cleared by CONI. Many riders reported to be on that list remained on their protour teams and continued racing. Again, where is the standard? What are the definitions?


You may want to look beyond thepaceline.com for you bike racing news. The other Pro Tour teams did get rid of their OP riders, only Johann broke the agreement. Gil, Mancebo, Beloki....all did not ride for a pro tour team. Yet Disco hires three on the list. 

They were not "Cleared" of their involvement. The governing bodies realized that under the current structure, and without assistance from the Spanish courts, there was little they could do. This why the agreement among the Pro tour teams was so important and why Johann breaking it was so damaging. Perhaps the strangest "Clearing" came from the Portuguese federation. They "cleared" Sergio Paulinho, after saying the throughly reviewed the evidence....it was later found out they performed their "Review" prior to receiving the OP papers from the Spanish courts.



davidka said:


> Those of us that are frustrated by all this are so because the ASO and UCI continue to make it up as they go along. The sponsors deserve a more defined criteria so that they can enter the sport with realistic expectations. No sponsors, no sport.


While I assume they have not been calling you personally the ASO position has been well known. The exclusion of Astana is no surprise. If you are frustrated image how the ASO feels. They have built the tour for over 100 years, only to have its image continually tarnished by DS's, riders,and support staff.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

That's a lot of loose ends. I would only dismiss Zulle's testimony (I didn't know about it) because the court must have dismissed it to if they didn't take action. Why? Once doctors, ok but again, how could one of the biggest teams in the sport with the most famous cyclist ever not have turned in a positive? If everyone inside cycling could see all things that pointed to JB's team cheating why was not one rider caught in all that time?

Vaughters saying he was "no angel" and that he "made mistakes" is simply not good enough. If you commit a crime and refuse to give up the others involved you face additional charges for protecting the other criminals. I'm not buying it, that's just more of the doping code of silence and it is being allowed by ASO and the UCI. If he doped and he is trying to champion a dope free sport then I think nothing less than a list of everyone he can confirm to have been involved in doping signed by him will do. I am surprised that you don't see it the same way as you seem very polarized against anything related to doping.

My reference to Puerto riders was hypothetical but isn't Valverde still riding for a Pro Tour team? 

The Tour being tarnished by cheats is sad but the riders, DS's and support staff is all there is, without them there is no racing and no Tour. The ASO needs more than a position here. They need rules, black and white, in writing.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> That's a lot of loose ends. I would only dismiss Zulle's testimony (I didn't know about it) because the court must have dismissed it to if they didn't take action. Why?


The ease at which you dismiss something you admit to not knowing about is impressive. At the time this was pre-WADA. There was little the UCI could do without a positive test. Johann exploited this and continued to employee doping doctors who were clearly implicated in doping, not just by Zulle. The good thing is non-analytical positives are becoming an increasingly successfully way of catching dopers.



davidka said:


> Once doctors, ok but again, how could one of the biggest teams in the sport with the most famous cyclist ever not have turned in a positive? If everyone inside cycling could see all things that pointed to JB's team cheating why was not one rider caught in all that time?


Everyone "Inside" cycling has been screaming about Johann for years. He tried to brush it of as jealousy and threaten, both publicly and privately, those who spoke out. 

If you want to know how a rider dopes for years without getting caught read the story of Jorg Jaksche or Patrick Sinkewitz





davidka said:


> Vaughters saying he was "no angel" and that he "made mistakes" is simply not good enough. If you commit a crime and refuse to give up the others involved you face additional charges for protecting the other criminals. I'm not buying it, that's just more of the doping code of silence and it is being allowed by ASO and the UCI. If he doped and he is trying to champion a dope free sport then I think nothing less than a list of everyone he can confirm to have been involved in doping signed by him will do. I am surprised that you don't see it the same way as you seem very polarized against anything related to doping.


Actions speak louder then words. What JV is doing with Slipstream is much more then he could do if he just sat around and named names. I am not polarized, I am informed. I have been involved in cycling for 25 years, as a rider, support staff and a sponsor. It is clear who is moving forward and who wants to keep the status quo.



davidka said:


> My reference to Puerto riders was hypothetical but isn't Valverde still riding for a Pro Tour team?


Valverde was never mentioned in the initial Operation Puerto report. Much has been made of why that may have been, cover up? who knows. 



davidka said:


> The Tour being tarnished by cheats is sad but the riders, DS's and support staff is all there is, without them there is no racing and no Tour.


There are plenty of clean riders, DS's, and Support staff. They will get to ride the tour. Johann and his like will not. Pretty clear


----------



## big wheel4300 (Mar 31, 2003)

Take the TDF and stick it up prudmomme's ass. I'm sure if they could, they would ban all but french riders so they can finally win!!


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Glad you're impressed. At the time they needed a positive to take action. Now they don't. That Zulle testimony should still be sufficient, so where's the charges? Johan threatened them? Please...

Jorg named everyone. Charge them all then. Why no suspensions? A rider's word and confession is as strong as any usable evidence they have had.

Still not buying the JV thing. Riders get pulled out of their jobs on suspicion yet Jonathan has knowlege of a recent doping program and he's not talking? That's a non-analytical positive, why isn't his team suspended? In the current climate JV is operating a team while under suspicion for doping. Why doesn't the UCI hold his team's liscense under the condition that he rolls over on the guys they want the most (USPS/Discovery)? 

Why Astana and no one else. The list on not-included teams should be very long given the current clear as mud criteria.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Glad you're impressed. At the time they needed a positive to take action. Now they don't. That Zulle testimony should still be sufficient, so where's the charges? Johan threatened them? Please...
> 
> Jorg named everyone. Charge them all then. Why no suspensions? A rider's word and confession is as strong as any usable evidence they have had.
> 
> ...


The only thing that is clear is you do not understand what is happening in the sport.


----------



## optimieron (May 27, 2007)

Just as an aside Puerto was officially re-opened! I knew something was up. Contador is really in trouble now! ASO must have known this press release was going to happen today, a day after their conference!!!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb15news

M.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> The only thing that is clear is you do not understand what is happening in the sport.


I understand it well enough but why don't you explain it to us?


----------



## Bianchi67 (Oct 16, 2005)

davidka said:


> If everyone inside cycling could see all things that pointed to JB's team cheating why was not one rider caught in all that time?


How many Telekom / T-Mobile riders have been caught in the past decade? (Not many) 

Would anyone with any knowledge of pro cycling over the past year think T-Mobile was clean the past decade?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bianchi67 said:


> How many Telekom / T-Mobile riders have been caught in the past decade? (Not many)
> 
> Would anyone with any knowledge of pro cycling over the past year think T-Mobile was clean the past decade?


Ouch!

As much as I loved the BigPinkT I have to admit we were turbo-needle powered for many years. 

As Lance's coach says, if it does not show up in the controls it isn't doping.

:thumbsup:


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> They were five years between issues. Moreni was clear that no body on the team had any idea that he was using.


Wrong on both counts. Millar of Cofidis confessed before the start of the 2004 tour -- (four years ago, not five) and told the federales about the pressure from the team to dope. Indeed, allegations surfaced during the Millar investigation that his team was spending $50K annually on doping products. Nothing happened. And you're going to believe a cheat like Moreni who signed the UCI rider declaration affirming he is clean?  




bigpinkt said:


> High Road cleaned house in 2007, that is why they still have a chance to get in. Gonchar was caught by their own internal controls, how many teams have done that? Sinkewitz also said that there was no organized doping on the team


Like T-Mobile/High Road, Astana cleaned house in 2008, yet unlike T-Mobile/High Road they don't get in. Why can't the new Astana with the Damsgard anti-doping procedures be given the same chance the "new" T-Mobile was given in 2007??? Regarding your implication that other teams don't catch their riders with their own internal controls the way Gonchar was caught, then let's throw CSC out of the Tour now because their internal controls (using your logic) are an utter failure -- no CSC riders nabbed to date. Oh, yeah, I'll take that cheat Sinkewitz's word for it.  





bigpinkt said:


> You are kidding right? The "Never tested postive" mantra holds no water. Ulrich and Basso never tested positive. Johann showed what side of the doping war he was on when he hired Basso


If the "never tested positive" mantra holds no water, then why are Bouygues Telecom and FdJ allowed to ride??? They've NEVER tested positive!  Regarding Johann showing what side of the doping war he was on when he hired Basso, then what does that say of Saunier Duval (invited to the 2006 Tour) when they brought EPO user Millar on board? Using your logic, if it's ok to take Sinkewitz's and Moreni's word for it, then Basso, unlike Millar, only attempted to dope but never actually doped. (Of course I don't believe Basso for a second -- nor do I believe Sinkewitz or Moreni for a second.) 



bigpinkt said:


> Wrong, in fact Ullrich was under the Swiss Federation which has yet to sanction him. Because of the obvious evidence against Basso the Pro Tour teams all voted not to hire him or anyone else involved in Puerto...so Bruyneel hires 3 OP riders. smart move


Again you're off the mark. Ullrich has yet to be sanctioned, which is why he was contaminated and nobody would talk to him. Oh yeah, "Hijo de Rudicio" is a bit of a smoking gun. At least "Birillo" kept people guessing. After Basso was provisionally cleared by HIS OWN CYCLING FEDERATION, Discovery and Barloworld began talking to him and Discovery ended up signing him. Nothing unethical about that. And you're wrong, not "all" the ProTour teams voted against Bruyneel, check your facts. FdJ was not a member of the IPCT when it voted and Iles Balears didn't vote in favor of the resolution. And indeed those other teams that led the charge against Discovery for signing up Basso are led by that arch-angel of anti-doping himself, QuickStep boss Patrick Lefevre.  Puh-lease. But let's leave the Basso-Bruyneel affair out of Prudhomme's decision, it has nothing to do with it. If that were a problem Prudhomme would have told Bruyneel not to show up for the _Grand Depart_ in London before the Vino-Kachechkin fiasco arose.




bigpinkt said:


> in addition to Contador you forget about Kloden. T-Mobile let him go because they knew he would not operate in their new, clean, system. Kahsekin is actively training with the Astana development team. Nikolai Proskurin, Kazakh cycling federation president, made sure that Vino only received a one year ban...even thought the rules says he should get two. Proskurin is who put the team together, the people who where in charge of the $$$ last year are the same as this year.


FINALLY!!! You got one right and finally we agree on something :thumbsup: Prudhomme's Astana ban is a loud and clear message to the Kazakh cycling federation -- which we both agree is behind or at least has substantial influence regarding the funding of Astana. And that message is that the Kazakh federation's one-year ban on Vino was absolutely offensive. If Prudhomme would have come out and publicly said out loud that's the reason, I would be a little more sympathetic to his decision. Alas, he didn't.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> Wrong on both counts. Millar of Cofidis confessed before the start of the 2004 tour -- (four years ago, not five) and told the federales about the pressure from the team to dope. Indeed, allegations surfaced during the Millar investigation that his team was spending $50K annually on doping products. Nothing happened. And you're going to believe a cheat like Moreni who signed the UCI rider declaration affirming he is clean?


The riders actions happened in 2003, Gaumont was nailed in January 2004. As for Moreni, not much good there, but at least he fessed up and did not even ask for a B test.



fornaca68 said:


> Like T-Mobile/High Road, Astana cleaned house in 2008,


You may see it as splitting hairs but Kash and Vino testing positive had a much larger negative effect on the Tour then Sinkewitz. Astana is many of the same Kasak riders, the same financial backers pulling strings, and of course Johann to make matter worse
I 


fornaca68 said:


> Why can't the new Astana with the Damsgard anti-doping procedures be given the same chance the "new" T-Mobile was given in 2007??? Regarding your implication that other teams don't catch their riders with their own internal controls the way Gonchar was caught, then let's throw CSC out of the Tour now because their internal controls (using your logic) are an utter failure -- no CSC riders nabbed to date. Oh, yeah, I'll take that cheat Sinkewitz's word for it.


I agree, the Damsgard controls are a joke and CSC should be in the same boat as Astana. 



fornaca68 said:


> f the "never tested positive" mantra holds no water, then why are Bouygues Telecom and FdJ allowed to ride??? They've NEVER tested positive!


There is a difference between hanging on to the back of the group just trying to finish and riding away from the best climbers in the world without breaking a sweat.



fornaca68 said:


> Regarding Johann showing what side of the doping war he was on when he hired Basso, then what does that say of Saunier Duval (invited to the 2006 Tour) when they brought EPO user Millar on board? Using your logic, if it's ok to take Sinkewitz's and Moreni's word for it, then Basso, unlike Millar, only attempted to dope but never actually doped. (Of course I don't believe Basso for a second -- nor do I believe Sinkewitz or Moreni for a second.)


There is a big difference between Miller and Basso. Miller confessed, abet under duress, and served his two year suspension. Basso lied, lied, lied





fornaca68 said:


> . At least "Birillo" kept people guessing.


 except for the phone calls and txt messages.




fornaca68 said:


> And you're wrong, not "all" the ProTour teams voted against Bruyneel, check your facts. FdJ was not a member of the IPCT when it voted


I pointed this out in my post



fornaca68 said:


> and Iles Balears didn't vote in favor of the resolution.


But Disco did, and they were the only ones who broke it. 



fornaca68 said:


> And indeed those other teams that led the charge against Discovery for signing up Basso are led by that arch-angel of anti-doping himself, QuickStep boss Patrick Lefevre.  Puh-lease.


Agreed. Lefevre is part of the problem, not the solution.



fornaca68 said:


> But let's leave the Basso-Bruyneel affair out of Prudhomme's decision, it has nothing to do with it.


You may think so, but it was. It showed that Johann did not care about agreements or perception.




fornaca68 said:


> FINALLY!!! You got one right and finally we agree on something :thumbsup: Prudhomme's Astana ban is a loud and clear message to the Kazakh cycling federation -- which we both agree is behind or at least has substantial influence regarding the funding of Astana. And that message is that the Kazakh federation's one-year ban on Vino was absolutely offensive. If Prudhomme would have come out and publicly said out loud that's the reason, I would be a little more sympathetic to his decision. Alas, he didn't.



I think we actually would agree on most things. There is a culture of doping in the sport that needs to be driven out of it, the challenge is where do you draw the line. I think that guys like Johann, Lefevre, Godefroot should be on the outside looking in.

This could get even more strange....word is that Johann may be on the way out, then it will be just the Borats running the show.


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

It is nigh impossible to apply the same ruling across the board for all teams when there are so many "shades of gray" in regards to the doping offenses. As teams attempt to move beyond the doping cloud, you have to expect that there will be hiccups due to the fact that a transition is taking place, which describes the T-Mob/High Road situation. They put a legitimate system in place and were genuinely committed to rooting out the problem. There are no perfect solutions, and in applying theirs, you had the Sinkewitz and Gonchar instances. Condemning the team for the aftermath of an anti-doping system amounts to attacking the solution to the problem, which puts you on the wrong side of the argument, IMO. 

The ASO is forced to make a judgement call because some offenses are more egregious than others, and it's right to give someone or some group a pass if they're genuinely committed to rid cycling of doping. Due to the fact that Astana/Liberty Seguros was Ground Zero for the biggest doping scandal in recent memory, it is reasonable to expect the ASO to apply a strict standard to their case. When you consider the cumulative effect of the current players and the very recent history of the team, it is reasonable to view their actions with great suspicion. 

I hear a lot of calls for absolute policies as far as the Tour invites go, but difficulty arises when you examine the uniqueness of each situation. The mess that's going on in pro cycling has been accurately described as a war. The ASO has been very clear about which side of the war they're on, and they have the right to do that. Every year, the selection process involves judgement calls. It's likely that they would consider the views of the teams and the UCI more if they felt they had a genuine partner in the fight against doping, but sadly, it seems like they are not quite there yet. Neither are a majority of the fan boys who have offered up these tired cliches like, "never tested positive." I am waiting to hear the voice of the real victims in this, who are the minority or riders in the ranks who are actually riding clean, and mostly in relative obscurity. I'm puzzled about why the UCI does not feel it's their responsibility to represent their cause in much the same way that the MLB players union goes to the mat for its cheaters.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

wheezer said:


> It is nigh impossible to apply the same ruling across the board for all teams when there are so many "shades of gray" in regards to the doping offenses. As teams attempt to move beyond the doping cloud, you have to expect that there will be hiccups due to the fact that a transition is taking place, which describes the T-Mob/High Road situation. They put a legitimate system in place and were genuinely committed to rooting out the problem. There are no perfect solutions, and in applying theirs, you had the Sinkewitz and Gonchar instances. Condemning the team for the aftermath of an anti-doping system amounts to attacking the solution to the problem, which puts you on the wrong side of the argument, IMO.
> 
> The ASO is forced to make a judgement call because some offenses are more egregious than others, and it's right to give someone or some group a pass if they're genuinely committed to rid cycling of doping. Due to the fact that Astana/Liberty Seguros was Ground Zero for the biggest doping scandal in recent memory, it is reasonable to expect the ASO to apply a strict standard to their case. When you consider the cumulative effect of the current players and the very recent history of the team, it is reasonable to view their actions with great suspicion.
> 
> I hear a lot of calls for absolute policies as far as the Tour invites go, but difficulty arises when you examine the uniqueness of each situation. The mess that's going on in pro cycling has been accurately described as a war. The ASO has been very clear about which side of the war they're on, and they have the right to do that. Every year, the selection process involves judgement calls. It's likely that they would consider the views of the teams and the UCI more if they felt they had a genuine partner in the fight against doping, but sadly, it seems like they are not quite there yet. Neither are a majority of the fan boys who have offered up these tired cliches like, "never tested positive." I am waiting to hear the voice of the real victims in this, who are the minority or riders in the ranks who are actually riding clean, and mostly in relative obscurity. I'm puzzled about why the UCI does not feel it's their responsibility to represent their cause in much the same way that the MLB players union goes to the mat for its cheaters.


Very well written.

As much as people would like to compare what happened years ago with Cofidis or T-Mobile neither of these teams have embarrassed the Tour to the level that Astana has. 

Just last year Astana had two riders in the top 10 expelled for blood doping. This is a big differences from some guy in 80th place rubbing testosterone jell on his arm. Blood doping is not something you can do unaided. 

The reaction of the riders once caught was also an embarrassment. Sink and Moreni both said, "Yes, I did it" while Vino and Kash, along with the management of Astana, attacked the ASO. with crazy conspiracy theory's and talks of civil right violations. Vino, Kash, and Proskurin are all still involved with the team. Hard to forget they showed up to the Tour in 2006 with 5 Operation Puerto riders..... add Johann to this toxic mix and the ASO's actions are no surprise.

No team since Festina has done more to damage the image of the tour


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

wheezer said:


> <snip ... > The mess that's going on in pro cycling has been accurately described as a war. The ASO has been very clear about which side of the war they're on, and they have the right to do that. <snip ...>


And we all know what the first casualty of war is, don't we?


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

GearDaddy said:


> And we all know what the first casualty of war is, don't we?


That would be XXXXX. But whose are you suggesting is being infringed? Riders? Promoters? Consumers? This could be long debate.

Edit: truth, duh!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

wheezer said:


> That would be XXXXX. But whose are you suggesting is being infringed? Riders? Promoters? Consumers? This could be long debate.
> 
> Edit: truth, duh!


It is pretty clear which side of the war has the lowest regard for the truth


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> It is pretty clear which side of the war has the lowest regard for the truth


 I wondered when I noticed your screen name was Big Pink T and that you joined with that screen name less than two years ago, are you sure you understand what's going on in the sport?

Everyone in professional cycling is on the same side whether they are willing to admit it or not. They are all here (race organizers, riders, teams, sponsors) to make a living.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> I wondered when I noticed your screen name was Big Pink T and that you joined with that screen name less than two years ago, are you sure you understand what's going on in the sport?


So you think that the length of time registered on a message board equates to your level of knowledge of the sport? 

I have been involved in cycling as a rider, support staff, and sponsor for 25 years. 6 of those years were spent living and racing in Europe. 

How about yourself? A couple of century rides and a tri?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

wheezer said:


> It is nigh impossible to apply the same ruling across the board for all teams when there are so many "shades of gray" in regards to the doping offenses.


It's interesting that we could agree so completely on the facts, yet disagree on the conclusions. I'm probably wrong, but...

I believe that precisely because there are so many confusing attributes to this problem that the rules should made that much more clear. ASO's methods, in appearing arbitrary, also appear unfair. If they had said beforehand that teams with two top-ten-placed riders caught doping will result in a bansishment, I'd be all for it. Even if they said it now, making it policy going forward, I'd support it. Instead they say that in the past Astana has made the ASO look bad, so they're getting snubbed now, and maybe they'll be invited back, we'll let you know. There's nothing team management can do about it now. There's nothing team management could have done about it over the winter. That's it. They're out.

Just focusing on that aspect, there are huge problems with this policy. There's still a lot of money in pro bike racing (admittedly a lot less than before!). The incentive to get an unfair share of that money (if you're a racer), or exposure (if you're an advertiser), or gambling profit if you're a better (there's no line in Vegas, I've checked, but I understand there's plenty of betting in Europe), coupled with this arbitrary selection system, leads one to conclude underhanded motives could lead to underhanded tactics. It has reached the point that a well-timed whisper campaign could be sufficient to result in a ban of a rider or team. There would be great motivation to manipulate events in this fashion. How much more TV time will Lotto get with Astana out? Or CSC? Wouldn't Cadel Evans be motivated to get last year's two other podium finshers out of the race (I'm not implying Evans would do this, just making a point!)? What would happen to the odds table if fresh Valverde info in the Puerto scandal was revealed on June 30, but refuted on July 10?

This is no way to run a world-class sport. I read many notes in this forum that suggest the entire concept of professional racing should be discarded. Amateurs only, or national teams only. That ain't gonna cut it. Top-flight sport needs top-flight money. It also needs top-flight thinkers in the center of the action, people with clear ideas and the conviction to take action.

Now to your point about the UCI. As ineffective as they've been, both in ProTour Council and at the McQuaid's office, they've been trying to apply fair rules to the process. It hasn't been perfect, with pre-announcements of positive tests, apparent lack vigor in pursuing the Puerto affair, etc., but on the whole they've seemed to have the riders and the sport in their minds. This at least provides a framework for protection of the rights of those clean riders you mention. In my view, the UCI has been less effective than it should have been because they've accepted responsibility for the entire sport - ProTour, other pro levels, amateur racing, drug policy, track racing, etc. - that they can't be effective on all fronts. Not enough money, not enough people, too many battles.

The riders' union needs to step forward, as does the teams organanization. These groups have to represent their constituencies with greater vigor. They have to show their willingness to put everything on the line, or they're not going to get the protections they rightfully deserve. 

Riders need to be willing to go out on a wildcat strike. Not one of these late starts, or slow rollouts. I mean 200 riders turning around at the start of Paris-Roubaix. Their motivations need to be clear. A charter needs to be developed. "We ride for team and/or country. We do it clean, as proven by bio passport (or whatever). We reject dopers (and will name names)." IOW, they need to assert their interest in the essential vitality of the sport, the racing.

Teams need to be willing to do the same. Drive the buses onto the head of the course at Milan-San Remo, and block the path. Demand clear rules of engagement. Arbitrate the silliness between Grand Tours and ProTour (perhaps wishful thinking given the lack of pulse in the ProTour). Suggest a relegation/promotion methodology enabling vital tenstion between ProConti teams and ProTour teams. IOW, they need to assert their interest in the main commercial aspect of the sport, the sponsorships.

Instead of progress, we have regression in the sport. The flip side to the weaknesses in riders' and teams' organizations, is the unnatural strength of ASO and their lieutenants in Italy and Spain. Why does the ASO have an arbitrary invitation policy (if well-meaning re: drugs)? Because they can get away with it. The ASO is not interested in the strength of the sport, they're interested in the strength of their events. They will support policies that result in chaos because it reinforces their strong position. They're thrilled being a big fish in a small pond. They get a disproportionately large share of the pie. Strong riders', teams', and ProTour organizations diminishes their strength. 

The ASO will not be giving away any of their strength. It will have to be taken away by the riders and the teams. Or the sport will revert to a hobby. The best athletes will migrate to marathon or triathlon. The crowds will go home.

A bit of rant. Apologies.

JSR


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

JSR said:


> Or the sport will revert to a hobby. The best athletes will migrate to marathon or triathlon. The crowds will go home.
> 
> JSR


Oh please , could we have a bit more hyperbole here? 

I am going to assume that you do not live in Europe and have not spent much time on the side of the road at races here. Equating the sport of cycling with a hobby is a truly North American-centric view and reflects the reality of cycling in the USA and Canada, not of Europe. The best cyclists will still race here, and perhaps even more will be drawn to the sport since they might actualy have a winning chance now that the incidence of organised doping has diminished. 

And I'm sorry .... the crowds will go home????? Srsly???? OK, maybe after the broomwagon has gone by - but not before. Did you know that roadside spectating at the TDF has increased, and that over 75% of the French population has seen the race live???? What are the figures for the TOC or the Tof Missouri?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

JSR said:


> Riders need to be willing to go out on a wildcat strike. Not one of these late starts, or slow rollouts. I mean 200 riders turning around at the start of Paris-Roubaix. Their motivations need to be clear. A charter needs to be developed. "We ride for team and/or country. We do it clean, as proven by bio passport (or whatever). We reject dopers (and will name names)." IOW, they need to assert their interest in the essential vitality of the sport, the racing.
> 
> Teams need to be willing to do the same. Drive the buses onto the head of the course at Milan-San Remo, and block the path. Demand clear rules of engagement. Arbitrate the silliness between Grand Tours and ProTour (perhaps wishful thinking given the lack of pulse in the ProTour). Suggest a relegation/promotion methodology enabling vital tenstion between ProConti teams and ProTour teams. IOW, they need to assert their interest in the main commercial aspect of the sport, the sponsorships.
> 
> JSR


Good luck with the protests, many of the teams, riders, and governing bodies have come out in support of the ASO


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> And I'm sorry .... the crowds will go home????? Srsly???? OK, maybe after the broomwagon has gone by - but not before. Did you know that roadside spectating at the TDF has increased, and that over 75% of the French population has seen the race live???? What are the figures for the TOC or the Tof Missouri?


Admittedly hyperbolic this morning.

Admitting your facts about attendance. 

How's it going in Germany?

How's it going at the races that are shutting down operations in France and Spain?

How will it go at the TdF when trade teams structure collapses (as it may well do in current circumstances)? It will still be a fun event, but will remain the pinnacle of a second-tier sport.

For good or for ill, Armstrong showed the value of a well-funded organization with a targeted plan. If he had spent his energy in winning the Ironman seven times, would that sport be on the ascendency instead of cycling? (I recognize the US bias in that question, but also submit that his example has changed the dynamics in the sport.)

JSR


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

JSR said:


> How's it going in Germany?


In a word? It sucks, because of riders, DS's and doping doctors who have poisoned the sport for the average fan. But not because of the ASO, whenever the tour goes to Germany they still get 1,000,000 on the side of the road



JSR said:


> How's it going at the races that are shutting down operations in France and Spain?


The Pro Tour is more the reason




JSR said:


> For good or for ill, Armstrong showed the value of a well-funded organization with a targeted plan.
> 
> JSR


Please stop repeating myth's you read on Paceline.com. Banesto, Mapei, Renault-Elf, all showed the value of a well funded organization. Tailwind did not invent this...USPS was a joke for the first two years of Lance's 7


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

JSR said:


> Admittedly hyperbolic this morning.
> 
> Admitting your facts about attendance.
> 
> How's it going in Germany?


Germany viewership averages = 1.7 million -after ARD came back online in 2007.



JSR said:


> How's it going at the races that are shutting down operations in France and Spain?


Seems quite well - attendance was up at Besseges and at the Tour Mediteraneen despite the Classic Haribo being canceled. What you are perhaps missing is that there is a trend in favour of football (the real kind, not the US kind) that is shifting sponsor interest. We all know that EU football is dope-free!! (OK, maybe we don't all know. It is not and most of the Puerto atheletes were surmised to have been footballers)



JSR said:


> How will it go at the TdF when trade teams structure collapses (as it may well do in current circumstances)? It will still be a fun event, but will remain the pinnacle of a second-tier sport.


In my lifetime, there have been national teams and trade teams for the TDF and other races. Despite the change in structure, it has always remained popular. History has proven though that even when trade teams are not racing, the TDF has never been a second tier sport. I'll let you in on a secret - the US does not = the world. While I would not be surprised to cycling revert to its 4th tier status in the US, that move would in no way impact the popularity of cycling in the <i> world</i>. Football, Tennis, Basketball and cycling are all pretty consistently up at the top ratings in Europe and in many other areas of the world. The top US sport -- is it American football or Baseball -- is trul;y a second-tier sport <i> in the world</i>.



JSR said:


> For good or for ill, Armstrong showed the value of a well-funded organization with a targeted plan. If he had spent his energy in winning the Ironman seven times, would that sport be on the ascendency instead of cycling? (I recognize the US bias in that question, but also submit that his example has changed the dynamics in the sport.)
> 
> JSR


I am agnostic on the question of Armstrong's contribution to cycling - in a hundred+ year-old sport, it is still too early to tell. However, Dave Scott consistently ruled the Ireman but I don't believe that was enough to raise the sport of triathalon to the US or world "first-tier" status.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> In a word? It sucks, because of riders, DS's and doping doctors who have poisoned the sport for the average fan. But not because of the ASO, whenever the tour goes to Germany they still get 1,000,000 on the side of the road
> 
> The Pro Tour is more the reason


Your points go to my main argument: The sport, in order to achieve a strong place among first-tier sports, needs an ecology of the variety of interests that is self-supporting. The ASO is part of the problem becuase, due to their strength, the organizations of teams and riders have not accepted their responsibilities.

JSR


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

JSR said:


> Your points go to my main argument: The sport, in order to achieve a strong place among first-tier sports,


It already has this, just not were you live



JSR said:


> needs an ecology of the variety of interests that is self-supporting. The ASO is part of the problem becuase, due to their strength, the organizations of teams and riders have not accepted their responsibilities.
> 
> JSR


You have completely lost me. 

Because the ASO is strong riders/teams dope?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> What you are perhaps missing is that there is a trend in favour of football (the real kind, not the US kind) that is shifting sponsor interest. We all know that EU football is dope-free!! (OK, maybe we don't all know. It is not and most of the Puerto atheletes were surmised to have been footballers)


This also goes to my main point. Sponsorship euros (desprately shifting my reference outide of my US bias ) are a finite universe. Right now cycling is losing the fight for that money. Cycling won't start winning the fight if its top teams can be excluded from the most important venue by arbitrary decisions (however noble the motivation), with no recourse. Without the money, cycling is regulated to second-tier status.




philippec said:


> History has proven though that even when trade teams are not racing, the TDF has never been a second tier sport.


I'm trying to discriminate between the "sport" of cycling and the "event" of the TdF. I've been tring to make the point that the ASO is happy to have the TdF be a great event, even if no other races are succesful. (Yes, I'm purposely not mentioning other ASO-sponsored events in order to make my point.)



philippec said:


> I'll let you in on a secret - the US does not = the world. While I would not be surprised to cycling revert to its 4th tier status in the US, that move would in no way impact the popularity of cycling in the <i> world</i>. Football, Tennis, Basketball and cycling are all pretty consistently up at the top ratings in Europe and in many other areas of the world. The top US sport -- is it American football or Baseball -- is trul;y a second-tier sport <i> in the world</i>.


Ok, Ok, Ok, I'm American. I admit it. I've lived in Europe and travel there frequently. Two of my siblings live in Europe. I'm not totally ignorant of other perspectives. My head hurts. Stop beating me!

Nonetheless I'm predicting a slide in the importance of cycling. The TdF may remain interesting to viewers, but less so than is possible. In the same way that viewersip of Premier League, Bundesliga, et al, increase the importance of Champions League, stronger interest in other top-tier events would leverage the strength of the TdF. Sponsorship money fuels that kind of leverage, and as you point out, cycling is losing that fight.



philippec said:


> I am agnostic on the question of Armstrong's contribution to cycling - in a hundred+ year-old sport, it is still too early to tell. However, Dave Scott consistently ruled the Ireman but I don't believe that was enough to raise the sport of triathalon to the US or world "first-tier" status.


Fair enough. My Armstrong point was stretched pretty far anyway. But eventually the Armstrong/Tailwind regime was able to attract fairly important money in the likes of Discovery Channel. Top quality sponsors like T-Mobile and Dicovery, now gone, and Rabobank, on the brink, are fleeing the sport. No offense to the cement manufacturers and nutritional supplement suppliers who have been so good for cycling, but "first tier" status is acheived when the Coca-Colas, Mercedes Benzes, and Accentures are fighting for the privilege of shoveling money into the sport.


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

JSR said:


> This also goes to my main point. Sponsorship euros (desprately shifting my reference outide of my US bias ) are a finite universe. Right now cycling is losing the fight for that money. Cycling won't start winning the fight if its top teams can be excluded from the most important venue by arbitrary decisions (however noble the motivation), with no recourse. Without the money, cycling is regulated to second-tier status.


Sponsors have nothing to lose and everything to gain by a strict anti-doping policy. As a team looking to attract sponsors, the more credible your anti-doping policy is the more insulated you are against embarrassing test results. Astana was willfully less than diligent in choosing where to allocate its resources, mostly due to a bias in favor of their national champion. It is unlikely that other, more scrupulous sponsors would make the same mistake.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Because the ASO is strong riders/teams dope?


No, because the ASO is strong, those organizations don't accept their responsibilities. 

Doping must be brought under control while still promoting the sport. You made the point about about fan interest waning due to revelations about doping. It seems in Germany right now that every revelation generates more revulsion by the fans and the press. The French seem to have had their revulsion, but still found a way to love the sport. Others, yes including the US, a market worth pursuing IMO, will need to learn to love the sport still.

Alternatively, each revelation could be an opportunity to show that the very fact of being revealed is a triumph in the fight against doping. Teams and riders could be taking the lead, not just in Germany, but everyhwhere. Instead they're on their back feet. Even a team that tries to implement all the latest controls can be excluded. With no support mechanism, that team is defenseless. Why bother to spend 500,000 euros on Damsgaard's program? That MIGHT get Astana back in, eventually, but without guarantees.

So what do the other, so-called "clean" teams do? Put in a similar program? Why? That's wasted money. Continue to support a surruptitious doping program? Why not? It's cheaper than being clean, gets more visibility (wins races), runs similar risks to actually proving cleanliness.

So where are the AIGCP and CPA? Where are their clarifying statements in support of teams and riders taking steps which they believe conform with the proper anti-doping methods? Where are their clarifying statements revealing suspicious activities, or suggested changes in oversight that could uncover suspicious activity before the event? These organizations are cowering in the background, providing no leadership, no advocacy, no nothing. (I guess I'm still on my hyperbolic horse.)

Sure, there was an outcry when Bruyneel hired Basso. Lots of hand-waving and crying. But nothing was done. IMO, if the eco-system were properly set up, the AIGCP would have sanctioned Discovery. If the AIGCP position was such that only AIGCP teams could compete in top-flight events, Discovery would have been excluded. If the rules are clear, and the constituencies well represented, this could happen. 

It seems to me the AIGCP, and CPA too, are happy to be powerless. What other conclusion can be drawn when they niether support the people who follow the rules, nor reject them when they don't?

Look, I'm just a fan. I claim no special knowlege or insight. I can only represent what I see. Baseball (ok, ok, 4th tier in Europe, if that, but a first tier here) is going through a very visible doping discussion now. One can argue that players union and the teams organization have handled the situation badly. But they each have major representation at the table. Players' rights are presented and defended as a first priority. Viability of the league is presented as a first priority. In cycling these constituencies have virtually no voice.

JSR


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

wheezer said:


> Sponsors have nothing to lose and everything to gain by a strict anti-doping policy. As a team looking to attract sponsors, the more credible your anti-doping policy is the more insulated you are against embarrassing test results. Astana was willfully less than diligent in choosing where to allocate its resources, mostly due to a bias in favor of their national champion. It is unlikely that other, more scrupulous sponsors would make the same mistake.


Ok, it's assumed the structure must guard dilligently against doping.

Astana, the sponsor, is new the cycling world. Their team messed up, badly. So they cleaned house, and instituted the biggest, baddest anti-doping plan in the peleton. Still not enough.

What exactly are the rules by which a sponsor can shovel 10-20 million euros into the sport, with a hope of a return? The ASO doesn't care, becuase they are getting theirs. If your team is found wanting in Prudomme's eyes and for whatever reason, you're out, and the next guy in line is in. 

JSR


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

I'd like to jump into this argument a bit, regarding the United States and the TdF. I think that the popularity of pro cycling in France and Belgium, Italy, other border nations will not wane due to the omission of someone like Astana. Or Slipstream. Or High Road. Pro cycling has always seemed to me to be a European sport, rather than a WORLD sport. And while it's wonderful for the sport to be in major competition in places like Dubai, Sydney, and SE Asia, it's still a mainly Euro sport. Any disagreements there?

Now that I've established that much, I hope, where does the US connection come in? Well, le Tour needs euros to be run effectively. It won't exist without euros. The Tour probably drew much more money during the Lance years than it had ever earned before. This is thanks largely to the American audience who tuned in and took some part in the marketing of the Tour that had never existed before. Not even when LeMond was racing. I followed cycling during the years of the great Indurain, but not much coverage other than an hour on Sunday afternoon on CBS, and that was if no golf was on.

The Tour can stand and exist with any involvement from the US, or Australia, or anywhere else. It's a French race, popular in France, Belgium, UK, and Italy. It's not hugely popular here, and if it goes back into relative obscurity in the US and around the rest of the world, it won't see the level of financial success that it has seen over the past few years.

I don't speak much French. Wish I did. But I DO speak the international language of MONEY, and that's what it's all about at the end of the day. The Tour won't grow, won't get bigger, and won't get more popular world-wide without a US connection.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

USA-Versus TDF viewership (1st half 2007 TDF) = 219,779 households
France TDF viewership (Daily stage average over 3 weeks) = 4 million up to 5.3 million for the end of the stage
Germany viewership averages = 1.7 million
UK viewership averages = ~400,000
(numbers borrowed from Phillipe)
Where do you think the money is coming from? Not the US.

You are correct, the US is huge potential for growth. I have heard that they are currently signing their new TV contract for more money then ever.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> You are correct, the US is huge potential for growth.


Yeah, that's what those numbers say to me.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JSR said:


> Yeah, that's what those numbers say to me.


So after 7 years of dominating the event, the viewer numbers are still close to nothing. Why should the ASO spend more time on that loosing battle again? 
ASO seems to have much better ways to make money.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

JSR, sponsors don't leave the sport because ASO are allowed to pick and choose who they invite to their races. Sponsors leave the sport because it simply isn't good practice to have your brand associated with lying, cheating and doping.

Personally I don't think Astana have any place in professional cycling because the team sponsors are associated with some of the worst human rights abuses in the world - but that's a moral argument, and that would never do, would it?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> Personally I don't think Astana have any place in professional cycling because the team sponsors are associated with some of the worst human rights abuses in the world - but that's a moral argument, and that would never do, would it?


Agreed. Exhibit A of kazakhstan Human right abuse....those poor girls


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

JSR said:


> Ok, it's assumed the structure must guard dilligently against doping.
> 
> Astana, the sponsor, is new the cycling world. Their team messed up, badly. So they cleaned house, and instituted the biggest, baddest anti-doping plan in the peleton. Still not enough.
> 
> ...


The problem is, Astana _didn't_ 'clean house'. Remember that Astana were Liberty in 2006 and who was excluded from that Tour because of OP? Alberto Contador. There are half a dozen riders in the squad who are ex-Liberty/Astana riders, at least 3 of whom have been implicated in OP. Benoit Joachim, the only USPS rider stupid enough to ever get caught doping is there. Vino still pulls the strings behind the scenes. Kash is training with the feeder team. The anti doping programme is simply too little much too late - Astana sais last year that they were a whole new team, were given a chance and disgraced themselves and the sport hugely, The huge budget Astana's sponsors are putting up is part of a PR exercise to make a repressive regime look good. Don't fool yourself for a minute that Astana's sponsors want anything other than success at any price - and they must have thought Bruyneel was the man to deliver precisely that. Perhaps they should have spent a little more time researching the way the wind was blowing...


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Never tested positive does not mean anything anymore, ask Ulrich and Basso


What proof do you have that the teams ASO is inviting are clean?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> JSR, sponsors don't leave the sport because ASO are allowed to pick and choose who they invite to their races. Sponsors leave the sport because it simply isn't good practice to have your brand associated with lying, cheating and doping.


Good point, and well taken in the light of Phonak, ONCE, etc.. This also means that the sport is losing the sponsors it has had when it had been hoped that sponsors with deeper pockets would have been attracted.

Of course, in recent years ASO was obligated to bring the ProTour teams, so even if there were ethical concerns, the sponsor could at least count on some exposure at the big event. If there were clear ground rules now for participation, the sponsor might be induced to oversee ethical controls with a view to assuring that participation.


----------



## glenzx (Aug 2, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> How about yourself? A couple of century rides and a tri?



BOOYA!

Ouch. You guys keep on keepin' on - all the back-and-forth is actually generating a lot of good conversation!


----------



## Bianchi67 (Oct 16, 2005)

Why should Lotto and Caisse want to stop to support Astana? Both teams have been robbed of hugh wins by the Astana rider who has caused the problems.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

fornaca68 said:


> 1. Cofidis is a repeat offender. Let's not forget that, and same management. Let's also not forget they're a French team.
> 
> 2. High Road in 2008 has the SAME management as 2007 and yet Sinkewitz slips through the cracks and Gonchar registers a stinky hematocrit level, all in 2007.
> 
> ...


Im with you here. This is stupid now.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

MG537 said:


> I've been reading through the 100 or so posts and some of you may have touched upon this.
> ASO's decision may be a purely political one. Meaning, don't try to find any logic in it.
> Here are some (political) reasons for excluding Astana.
> 
> ...


 LMAO!! Thye might just be after Johan! Hell, we cannot not have another American lkike Levi win right? Maybe Floyd was screwed???

Pattern? Hell, Floyd rode for Johan!!

I am convinced now. ASO and the TDF do NOT want American's on the podium anymore!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> There are plenty of clean riders, DS's, and Support staff. They will get to ride the tour. Johann and his like will not. Pretty clear


Yu acutally believe this? Cheating and rug use/doping has been part of ALL sports since they began. EVERY sport has cheaters and always will. If you think Cycling, Football, etc will ever be clean, you might be on dope as well.

These guys might be on stuff that no one can detect.

Cheaters are ALWAYS ahead of the game. The TDF has been plagued by PED since day one. But in the old days it was ok with everyone and encourged. Things like speed, etc were popular and celebrated. Hell these guys even drank booze and wine. So the TDF, ASO and the Frech need to get off thier white horse about being embarassed. Doping has always been there.

Cycling also need sbetter sponsors. I don't see big coportaions pulling thier sponsorship will all the crap in baseball and players testing positve in Foortball. Or drunk driving arrests, spousal abuse in sports....

Maybe cycling is not worth thier dollars when some one get's caught.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> JSR, sponsors don't leave the sport because ASO are allowed to pick and choose who they invite to their races. Sponsors leave the sport because it simply isn't good practice to have your brand associated with lying, cheating and doping.
> /quote]But these same sponsores are fine with other sports drugs issues, wife beatings, trafficing, drunk driving, etc...
> 
> The major sports still make them money, but cycling does not. It's not that they have a "moral" grounds for leaving cycling.
> ...


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

So at the end of all this we realize the ASO is out to punsih ASTANA and make them the example.

The will not get rid of every team that had doping or doping issues French or not.

ASTANA is being used to send a message about doping. Fine Just come out and make this clear. Vino ony get's one year. Well we will make it another year but for your whole TEAM. I bet ASTANA if clean this year get's info ASO events and the GIRO.

Now on the lighter side:

No more TDF wins for Johan. ASO and the TDF are sick of him.
No more Americans winning the TDF. Levi got to clsoe last year so get ride of him now. Maybe Floyd was screwed!!
They know an American team like High Road has no shot of wining the TDF .


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

JSR said:


> Good point, and well taken in the light of Phonak, ONCE, etc.. This also means that the sport is losing the sponsors it has had when it had been hoped that sponsors with deeper pockets would have been attracted.
> .


If REAL money was there, BIG, DEEP pocket sponsorrs would not care. Just look at Baseball and all the Major sports here.

Weren't most suspects in OP soccer players? Any big time sponsors pull out of the big Leagues in Europe? Where these players named? Or did these huge money clubs shut everyone up??? Don't think Man U could shut up everyone?


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

davidka said:


> Pro Cycling needs to move to America.


Clearly, this would be the most expedient way to kill off the sport.....


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

And now I find myself having made the exact same argument as Michael Ball. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb16news2

I'm not sure what to make of that. It would seem that either I've got my head where the sun don't shine, or Ball's a lot smarter than he previously seemed 

JSR


----------

