# Why Disco Pulled the Plug - 100% BS



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Disco's comments on this are 100% garbage, IMO. They're saying that they couldn't ask a sponsor to spend that kind of money in this environment.

Apparently, they didn't have that problem a few weeks ago, when Bruyneel was saying they're close to signing a sponsor.

Right. Who writes their PR, Tony Snow??

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13074.0.html


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

FondriestFan said:


> Disco's comments on this are 100% garbage, IMO. http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13074.0.html


I read it on Velonews just now then saw your post. Dude, not 100% BS. Strikes me as being genuinely the truth -- at least substantially. Look at the ASO pulling their BS on Unibet -- and now intimating that they might have national teams race the Tour. That's the BS in cycling, and that's not worth $15MM. Sure, the doping doesn't help and I'm sure that might have scared a few would-be sponsors. But the whole sport, at least in Europe, is in disarray.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

FondriestFan said:


> Disco's comments on this are 100% garbage, IMO. They're saying that they couldn't ask a sponsor to spend that kind of money in this environment.
> 
> Apparently, they didn't have that problem a few weeks ago, when Bruyneel was saying they're close to signing a sponsor.


So, what's the right answer?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

fornaca68 said:


> Strikes me as being genuinely the truth -- at least substantially.


whatever your feeling about the ASO/UCI conflict it's hardly justification for turning down a 3 year sponsorship deal and disbanding your tour winning team, it's just nonsense. they knew everything they know now 3 months ago and were willing to pitch to sponsors then. something else changed, there's absolutely more to this than what they've trotted out so far.


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*Tired...*

Maybe they are just tired and want a break, or someone is on to them. My real problem is what about the employees and riders. I mean, will every rider be able to find a team etc. At least they gave them plenty of notice. It is a hard life, well, for Brunyel, Armstrong seems to be doing his own thing. I wonder what Demol will do?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

JSR said:


> So, what's the right answer?


The right answer to what? Why they pulled the plug? 

I think it's because they couldn't find a sponsor, especially one willing to wade into the dirty pool, especially one in which Disco dropped a few logs themselves.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

I think Armstrong's quote was particularly telling. He talks of "not one positive test" not of never having doped. 

_
"We're proud of our record. We had our fair share of controversies, but our record stands for itself. We won eight Tours, a Vuelta, a Giro and other races and not one positive test," Armstrong said. "I'm not sure if there are many other teams who can say that right now. Couple that with our ethical record, despite all the gossip and nonsense that goes on."_


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

*Your alarm clock just went off*



fornaca68 said:


> I read it on Velonews just now then saw your post. * Dude, not 100% BS. Strikes me as being genuinely the truth -- at least substantially.* Look at the ASO pulling their BS on Unibet -- and now intimating that they might have national teams race the Tour. That's the BS in cycling, and that's not worth $15MM. Sure, the doping doesn't help and I'm sure that might have scared a few would-be sponsors. But the whole sport, at least in Europe, is in disarray.


Are you dreaming or smoking something? Spin, spin, spin and I am not talking about cycling. Tailwind is puttting a good face on a disaster. Welcome to the modern world of PR. You don't pull the plug on someone writing a 45 million dollar check. There is always the public story and the "real" story. We just got the public story.


----------



## CaseLawZ28 (Jul 14, 2005)

I think a multitude of things are going on. I seriously doubt Tailwind and Lance suddenly got all high and moral when it comes to making sure sponsors got their due and good press. He's a "take-no-prisoner" type - take the sponsorship dollars and deliver results. Clearly financially driven and not "love of cycling driven" or health of corporate image driven. The fact that they are disbanding either says to me: (1) they were unable to find a sponsor to put up as much as they wanted (supposedly not the case and I doubt they couldn't find a single sponsor to at least get close financially), or (2) they are about to be embroiled in an intense doping scandal ready to drop, i.e., with Contador (more than just allegations).

Why so cynical? I don't think Lance is all that fond of cycling racing or the bike in general. Sure, he _says_ he still rides everyday and loves the bike. But back in '97 he didn't love the bike and it seems he had to be forced back on it. He also seemed to not have a clue as to the current cycling situation in the sport while on Versus for the interview. I think he is required to say "I still love the sport," "I still love the bike," "I still ride almost everyday" just for the bike related sponsors. If he did still love the bike and cycling and seeing it be healthy, Armstrong, Tailwind and the team would have persevered - dedicated to helping the sport recover and take on doping. And no, not in an altruistic sense where you scream "damn the torpedoes!" and go down in bankruptcy glory trying to come to the rescue of the sport - but if it was financially profitable and feasible to keep going. Instead, I think they've turned tail and run for personal reasons. If the money was there they would have taken it, I just think something is preventing them from keeping on keeping on. Which makes it kind of strange how Contador's defence-speech coincided with "the end of Discovery" speech.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Trying to think about this logicially, I think there are only a limited number of reasons why they would disband:

1.) They literally could not find a sponsor.

2.) They found a sponsor but the amount of money committed or the restrictions on the team were not acceptable to Tailwind.

3.) JB really wanted to retire, and no sponsor would sign on without him.

4.) There is a looming doping cloud coming and the sponsors disappeared.

5.) The UCI/ASO/Wada (Pick one or all) gave them a choice disband or we roll out the following evidence. 

6.) The ASO made it clear that they would not be invited to the TDF ever again and the US based sponsors fled.

7.) Some combination of the above.

I suspect there is more to the story than the general public will ever know.

Len


----------



## Travis (Oct 14, 2005)

I would chose answer #5 with a twist of we are going to continue to be a thorn in your side for any actions you may make. They were really ticked off about Basso and they really didn't like Tailwind from word "go". They needed a much stronger stance against doping to legitimize in WADA's eyes

I have been a Disco fan with legitimizing in my mind that the standard is the doping test not whether you are really doping or not. The issue that they cannot implement a legitimate doping test is a joke ...


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

I agree with the poster above that said Lance just isnt into cycling. His commentary during the Tour was pretty telling. If Johan wanted to retire Lance didnt seem like he would want bother anymore.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Len J said:


> Trying to think about this logicially, I think there are only a limited number of reasons why they would disband:
> 
> 1.) They literally could not find a sponsor.
> 
> ...


Quite possible indeed. I doubt Johan wanted to really retire yet. I'm sure he would have liked to try and defend the Tour title at least one more time and then retire maybe. 

Sponsor wise, well, maybe they were close to to finding one but then the sponsor was hesitant or the like and the terms/money involved were not what Tailwind wanted. But this would be a load of fawk shieet. Why? You friggin won 8 out of 9 Tours, this year was awesome and you'd not wanna work on a compromize for the sake of the team? That's fawking crap I think. Like, if say the Yankees disband for sponsor issues or whatever (ok not a v good analogy but yeah)

4) seems pretty good a reason. 5) could be as well maybe. (While I'd be happy to keep stating the reasons based on the other thread, I'm not ruling this out entirely so yeah)

6) well, I don't think so now could it be? 

Other reasons as well I guess.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

y'all need to calm down

allyou cna do is speculate and stop getting so upset, at least stop projecting it so personally. If you really care to figure out what is going on, corroberate with one another

I am certain no one reason is responsible for the team dissolving

USPS/DISCO had a fantastic run and I am glad I was around to enjoy it, ride during it, race during it, converse about it, watch the riders, and see what will come of it


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

CARBON110 said:


> y'all need to calm down
> 
> allyou cna do is speculate and stop getting so upset, at least stop projecting it so personally. If you really care to figure out what is going on, corroberate with one another
> 
> ...


*All things must pass........*


there have been more important breakups in my life:

Teh Beatles
CSN&Y

to name a couple.....


----------



## kazeebo (Jun 2, 2007)

Gotta love the conspiracies! More inclined to agree with Carbon on this line of thought. 

But just look at the sport as a whole on the professional level. No matter how much "cleaning up" they've done since '98, the problems just don't go away. There's far too much money at stake for far too many people for them all to come to a shared direction, goals, and interest. 

As difficult as it will be for me, we just need to enjoy the sport more for our own reasons rather than the heroes who seemingly constantly just let their fans down. We can and should enjoy the spectacle and hopefully someday we can leave the salt shakers in the cabinet.

Onward and upward Mr. Vaughters!


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

It kinda reminds me of Oceans Eleven, when they all walk away from the Waterfountain after Robbing the Casinos...
I wish Discovery would stay in it for several more years. I hope to hell that Contador isn't snagged up in controversy, and continues to win as a gentleman, and clean. 
I think this is a big loss for Lance, to not be able to sign on a big sponsorship deal. Too bad though. He's won more important battles in his life.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

I have a bridge to sell anyone that believes they took the moral high road on asking a sponsor to invest...they simply couldn't find anyone to put in the necessary money. They've been asking for months...now they realized "it wasn't right"? Please.  Ridiculous environment around cycling to invest good ad money into Disco especially with Contador rumblings.


----------



## El Caballito (Oct 31, 2004)

Regardless of their reason and decision to pull the plug, it sure was fun while it lasted.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

chuckice said:


> I have a bridge to sell anyone that believes they took the moral high road on asking a sponsor to invest...they simply couldn't find anyone to put in the necessary money. They've been asking for months...now they realized "it wasn't right"? Please.  Ridiculous environment around cycling to invest good ad money into Disco especially with Contador rumblings.


Agree completely. If they were committed to a cleaner cycling or actually cared about the sport, they'd have pushed hard for a sponsor and have been considerably more vociferous in the fight against doping.

So far, all we hear from those guys is "we never tested positive."


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

FondriestFan said:


> So far, all we hear from those guys is "we never tested positive."



that's not quite all they have to say, they seem to be taking plenty of digs at ASO on the way out of the building. classy.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> Agree completely. If they were committed to a cleaner cycling or actually cared about the sport, they'd have pushed hard for a sponsor and have been considerably more vociferous in the fight against doping.
> 
> So far, all we hear from those guys is "we never tested positive."


Disco doesn't care about the sport???? Did Disco run over your dog? Where does this vitriol come from?


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

In the US only one event per year gets decent coverage... TdF... if your a US domestic company do you really want to throw money at a cycling team when ASO is speculating that they are going to turn the tour into a nation team event?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Disco doesn't care about the sport???? Did Disco run over your dog? Where does this vitriol come from?


You mistake vitriol for truth. Then again, you probably hate Lemond for being right about everything.

I think Disco did nothing to fight doping. Rather, they encouraged it. Good riddance to a dirty team. That's just my opinion. YMMV.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

No company in its right mind would invest in a team with a questionable Tour winner in a sport in the midst of seemingly endless cheated allegations. Why would you put your own corporate image smack in the front of that and risk looking like"Discovery - we sponsor cheaters!" Not a smart investment as Disco/Tailwind found out...


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

chuckice said:


> No company in its right mind would invest in a team with a questionable Tour winner in a sport in the midst of seemingly endless cheated allegations...


...and a governing body that doesn't govern, and open warfare between the governing body and all the major even oranizers, and a teams organiztion having civil war.

If Tailwind had hung on for another month or two without securing proper sponsorship their riders would have lost out on their opportunity to negotiate with willing teams. 

I think it's plausible that they just looked around the room at one another and said "[email protected]#$ it! What else do have to prove and why are continuing in this environment? Let's chill out a while and see what happens next."


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> You mistake vitriol for truth. Then again, you probably hate Lemond for being right about everything.
> 
> I think Disco did nothing to fight doping. Rather, they encouraged it. Good riddance to a dirty team. That's just my opinion. YMMV.


You mistake your opinion for the truth.


----------



## Frank Tuesday (Jun 1, 2002)

uzziefly said:


> Quite possible indeed. I doubt Johan wanted to really retire yet. I'm sure he would have liked to try and defend the Tour title at least one more time and then retire maybe.


Why? He showed that he could win the tour without Lance riding. Yeah, it is great to win 7 tours, but it is better to win with two different riders than just one, no matter how many that one won.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> that's not quite all they have to say, they seem to be taking plenty of digs at *ASO* on the way out of the building. *classy*.


...wow, ASO and classy in the same sentence...

now that's hillarious....


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

JSR said:


> ...and a governing body that doesn't govern, and open warfare between the governing body and all the major even oranizers, and a teams organiztion having civil war.
> 
> If Tailwind had hung on for another month or two without securing proper sponsorship their riders would have lost out on their opportunity to negotiate with willing teams.
> 
> I think it's plausible that they just looked around the room at one another and said "[email protected]#$ it! What else do have to prove and why are continuing in this environment? Let's chill out a while and see what happens next."


+1...:thumbsup:...well said...


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

JSR said:


> I think it's plausible that they just looked around the room at one another and said "[email protected]#$ it! What else do have to prove and why are continuing in this environment? Let's chill out a while and see what happens next."


Another +1 JSR :thumbsup:


----------



## wiles (Apr 17, 2005)

*their investment*

The core of Tailwind sports, originally, as I understand it, is the same guy that helped reorganize the new successful USA Cycling, Thomas W. Weisel. He was the chief executive of Mongomery Securities. the legendary west coast financial firm. No slouch of a businessman. If Tom wanted Discovery to continue, he could make it happen. We are talking about one of the most successful and connected businessmen in America. He got this way making tough decisions after looking at the entire business picture.

The decision to quit is not about protecting a potential sponsor's investment. The decision to quit protects Tailwind Sports investments. Why invest time and money into a scenario that now could include not being invited to the TDF?

This sounds to me like the basic reason, especially after Lance's comment about Tailwind returning to investing in the sport someday in a better environment.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

This whole situation reminds me of the Bulls dynasty and Jordan retiring at the top of the game in the late 90's. I remember that Krause, the Bulls GM said something along the lines of even though they were winning all those championships, the organization wasn't profitable because of all those high salaries which led to some of the players leaving/retiring. 
The lesson there shows that its not about winning but rather it's just about money. Even with all those Tour wins it may be not profitable for an American company to sponsor a team when cycling interest is diminishing after Lance's retirement. I think Versus said that veiwership is going down too.


----------



## Crank-a-Roo (Mar 21, 2003)

I think Lance still loves to ride, but he may not want to run a team. Running a team is not easy. It takes more than the love of the sport to do it. it requires business sence, organisational skills, marketing skills, and many other skills. Lance probably knows about his limitation and decided against in running a team.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

funktekk said:


> In the US only one event per year gets decent coverage... TdF... if your a US domestic company do you really want to throw money at a cycling team when ASO is speculating that they are going to turn the tour into a nation team event?


Yes excellent point....couple that with the 'rumors' surrounding 'AC'....LA's association and the ever increasing 'questionability' of his victories....the fact that pro-cycling is defiantly in the gutter.....and you have one risky business proposition...certainy for a sponsor not all publicity is good publicity so to speak


----------



## scottyperkins (Jun 18, 2007)

It's hard for me to be an American fan of a predominantly European sport when it's so obvious that the core sports in the US are at best indifferent to doping.

Why are they indifferent? Because running a clean sport is both boring and expensive. In the case of baseball, as we were incessantly reminded this last week, drugs help players hit home runs. Lots of them. Home runs fill stadiums, even if they don't win games. When I see Bud Selig's overt indifference to Bonds passing Aaron this past week, I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotations from _The West Wing_:

"Your indignation was a whole lot more interesting when it wasn't so full of crap."

Does anyone ever foresee a MLB player getting caught for steroids or amphetamines during the playoffs? Does anyone foresee there ever being a public testing process during the playoffs that the media ever hears about? Even if there was such a process, does anyone foresee the entire team withdrawing from the playoffs because a utility player was found with exogenous testosterone in his sample? Isn't this essentially what happened with Cofidis during the Tour?

MLB continues to be tolerant of drugs and reluctant to make a spectacle out of its drug problems because it would quickly turn America's Pastime into a carnival sideshow, much like cycling has become. And who would want that? Certainly not the owners, networks, beer companies and other sponsors, and cities that own stadiums in which those teams play. Sideshows are not economically viable, as Tailwind seems to have discovered. Presumably, Discovery Channel, Oracle, HP, and whomever Tailwind was talking to were more aware of that than anyone.

Here's another contrast to ponder:

Scenario A: 33-year-old Alexander Vinokourov, wanting to make a run at potentially his last Tour, allegedly has a blood transfusion and gets caught. He will likely be suspended for two years, effectively ending his career, his team is forced to withdraw from the Tour, at the same time ending hopes for a podium spot for his teammate, Andreas Kloden, and arguably dishonoring an entire nation, who pulled the team from the financial ruin of a similar scandal so that he personally could make said Tour run. 

Scenario B: Cleveland Browns offensive lineman Ryan Taylor is caught having taken an undisclosed substance, rumored to be a steriod of some sort, and is suspended for four games. He can still practice in the preseason with the team, but can't play in the first four games. He issues a boilerplate statement about how he's disappointed in himself for tainting the integrity of the NFL. The city of Cleveland and the rest of the NFL ecosystem sniff and scratch and go back to their morning coffee. It's a non-event. 

I personally think the right answer is somewhere in the middle of those two scenarios. Doping in all forms is cheating, and wrong. However, you don't need to decimate the sport to stop cheaters. What Dick Pound, and Travis Tygart, and _Le Equipe_ are doing is eviscerating the sport, and when they're done there will be no cycling because there will be no economy to sustain it. Great, they'll have a 100% dope-free sport, and it will be as utterly captivating as competitive marble-shooting.

I'm sad that there will be no Tailwind next year. I will fondly remember being on the side of the road at the Tour of California prologue this year, losing my voice yelling for Tommy, Levi, George, and yes, Ivan. I will be going down to my LBS this week to get my XXL Discovery jersey while they last.

And, when cycling stops showing on Versus on Sundays, I'll wonder quietly would happen if Dick Pound ever decides to take on the PBR. Y'all have no idea what a 50%+ hematocrit level can do for a rodeo cowboy.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

scottyperkins said:


> It's hard for me to be an American fan of a predominantly European sport when it's so obvious that the core sports in the US are at best indifferent to doping.
> 
> Why are they indifferent? Because running a clean sport is both boring and expensive. In the case of baseball, as we were incessantly reminded this last week, drugs help players hit home runs. Lots of them. Home runs fill stadiums, even if they don't win games. When I see Bud Selig's overt indifference to Bonds passing Aaron this past week, I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotations from _The West Wing_:
> 
> ...


... or the bull...

good thing we're not talkin ******...:yikes:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Why would we expect Lance to suddenly start telling the truth? While he is pointing fingers at ASO and talking about walking away from $45 million it appears that Johan did not get the "Talking points" Bruyneel told VRT television.

"I had contacts with candidate-sponsors but the situation in the sport is so bad that nobody wants to be involved with us,"


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> Why would we expect Lance to suddenly start telling the truth? While he is pointing fingers at ASO and talking about walking away from $45 million it appears that Johan did not get the "Talking points" Bruyneel told VRT television.
> 
> "I had contacts with candidate-sponsors but the situation in the sport is so bad that nobody wants to be involved with us,"



wtf. thats less than 48 hours after stapleton and LA said emphatically that the decision had nothing to do with difficulty in getting sponsorship. these clowns are incapable of telling the truth.


----------



## CaseLawZ28 (Jul 14, 2005)

danielc said:


> Even with all those Tour wins it may be not profitable for an American company to sponsor a team when cycling interest is diminishing after Lance's retirement. I think Versus said that veiwership is going down too.


Actually, I believe I read that VS viewership for the Tour was actually up...even compared to 2005.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

il sogno said:


> I think Armstrong's quote was particularly telling. He talks of "not one positive test" not of never having doped.


Oh jeez, give it a rest, will ya?


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

blackhat said:


> that's not quite all they have to say, they seem to be taking plenty of digs at ASO on the way out of the building. classy.


ASO isn't exactly all class.



blackhat said:


> wtf. thats less than 48 hours after stapleton and LA said emphatically that the decision had nothing to do with difficulty in getting sponsorship. these clowns are incapable of telling the truth.


I got no defense of LA to offer, but seems like someone using Dick Pound as their avatar should maybe use restraint calling other people out for being liars and clowns.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

wiles said:


> The core of Tailwind sports, originally, as I understand it, is the same guy that helped reorganize the new successful USA Cycling, Thomas W. Weisel. He was the chief executive of Mongomery Securities. the legendary west coast financial firm. No slouch of a businessman. If Tom wanted Discovery to continue, he could make it happen. We are talking about one of the most successful and connected businessmen in America. He got this way making tough decisions after looking at the entire business picture.
> 
> The decision to quit is not about protecting a potential sponsor's investment. The decision to quit protects Tailwind Sports investments. Why invest time and money into a scenario that now could include not being invited to the TDF?
> 
> This sounds to me like the basic reason, especially after Lance's comment about Tailwind returning to investing in the sport someday in a better environment.



Weisel sold his portion about 3 years ago. Lance, Johann, Knaggs, etc. bought it....looks like once again he sold out at the top of the market


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

blackhat said:


> wtf. thats less than 48 hours after stapleton and LA said emphatically that the decision had nothing to do with difficulty in getting sponsorship. these clowns are incapable of telling the truth.


It looks like the Belgium guys were not informed of the spin control. Dirk Demol said "we didn't have a sponsor"


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> It looks like the Belgium guys were not informed of the spin control. Dirk Demol said "we didn't have a sponsor"


Demol is a little pissed as Johan was going to step into a managerial role and let Dirk be Director and had confirmed this to Demol up until the day of the announcement when they pulled the rug out from underneath him. Thanks for nothing Johan.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

chuckice said:


> No company in its right mind would invest in a team with a questionable Tour winner in a sport in the midst of seemingly endless cheated allegations. Why would you put your own corporate image smack in the front of that and risk looking like"Discovery - we sponsor cheaters!" Not a smart investment as Disco/Tailwind found out...


Probably fodder for a new thread, but.... Will there ever be another winner of the TdF (or any Grand Tour, for that matter) that isn't questionable, or implicated?


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

scottyperkins said:


> However, you don't need to decimate the sport to stop cheaters. What Dick Pound, and Travis Tygart, and _Le Equipe_ are doing is eviscerating the sport, and when they're done there will be no cycling because there will be no economy to sustain it. Great, they'll have a 100% dope-free sport, and it will be as utterly captivating as competitive marble-shooting.
> 
> .


Well said. Those media *****s care nothng for the sport of cycling, only for their own 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*that's life, baby*



OnTheRivet said:


> Demol is a little pissed as Johan was going to step into a managerial role and let Dirk be Director and had confirmed this to Demol up until the day of the announcement when they pulled the rug out from underneath him. Thanks for nothing Johan.


Unless you are actually Dirk Demol, I can't see why you'd be so upset about this. 
And I would think that Dirk would handle this situation like the professional that he is, and not react in such a manner.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

No there will never be another winner who isn't questionable. Gene doping and human nature guarantee it.

The timing of Disco's exit is interesting since it came right after the effectiveness of targeting the prime suspects was made extremely evident with the Astana 4 foursome and I guarantee they were hearing footsteps, especially since Ferarri clients were starting to get caught. I think Bruyneel's retirement has more to do with all the talk about holding teams and team management responsible than anything else.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

terzo rene said:


> I think Bruyneel's retirement has more to do with all the talk about holding teams and team management responsible than anything else.


Couldn't the reason he retired just be he's had enough of the chicken-$#% in cycling over the last couple of years and decided to get out on top with money in the bank? Remember how last December Quickstep's Lefevre led a group of ProTour teams that ceremonially voted Discovery out of their little ethics clubs (after Johan signed Basso), then they rescinded that vote, then a few months later Lefevre himself is the target of Mapei-era doping allegations? If you're Johan, you're bitter and tired of the BS. 

Ironic, though, how Bjarne Riis is going to survive all of this, still have his job and a terrific sponsor.


----------



## Fred_B_Cycling (Aug 13, 2007)

First Armstrong (EPO, Ferrari), then Basso (Fuentes), now Contador (Fuentes). All damaged goods. (Not to mention all the dope guzzling ex Posties, Hamilton, Landis, etc.)

Sponsors aren't as gullible as the Trek riding Lance Fans on this forum!


----------



## wiles (Apr 17, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Weisel sold his portion about 3 years ago. Lance, Johann, Knaggs, etc. bought it....looks like once again he sold out at the top of the market


thanks for the update. makes sense.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Fred_B_Cycling said:


> First Armstrong (EPO, Ferrari), then Basso (Fuentes), now Contador (Fuentes). All damaged goods. (Not to mention all the dope guzzling ex Posties, Hamilton, Landis, etc.)
> 
> Sponsors aren't as gullible as the Trek riding Lance Fans on this forum!


The ONLY reason why cycling is sooo focused on doping because it's actually TRYING to clean up the entire sport, unlike other sports such as the NFL, MLB and such.

Cycling has sooo much drug testing etc and of course, more people get caught for stupidity and the like. 

Are sponsors pulling out of the MLB coz of doping? Nope. Why? coz it's not as publicised nor as tested. Do teams with athletes caught doping get pulled out of the league or so? No. 

In cycling, a positive test would make grounds for suspension and firing and a ban of 2 years. In soccer, a positive test means a 2 year suspension or the like, depending on whether it's performance enhancing drugs or commercial drugs like cocaine or so. 

I say the sponsors are afraid yes. But, why? Coz doping is omnipresent in cycling? Nope. Other sports have it too. It's only because cycling is actually doing something about doping. And that's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. How many other sports do this?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

FondriestFan said:


> You mistake vitriol for truth. Then again, you probably hate Lemond for being right about everything.
> 
> I think Disco did nothing to fight doping. Rather, they encouraged it. Good riddance to a dirty team. That's just my opinion. YMMV.



How'd they encourage it? Why are they dirty? I mean, you can't just say this without backing it up.


----------



## snowman3 (Jul 20, 2002)

Travis said:


> I would chose answer #5 with a twist of we are going to continue to be a thorn in your side for any actions you may make. They were really ticked off about Basso and they really didn't like Tailwind from word "go". They needed a much stronger stance against doping to legitimize in WADA's eyes
> QUOTE]
> 
> I'd pick 5 as being unlikely. If ASO was as ticked as you imply, I doubt they would engage discussion behind closed doors. As leaky as French labs + press are, if there was evidence it wouldn't be kept behind closed doors either. So I don't give much credence to the underground conspiracy theory.
> ...


----------



## scottyperkins (Jun 18, 2007)

*...and then there were 17.*

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13095.0.html

So, now that the ASO only has 17 ProTour teams to worry about, maybe there's a local club team or three that wants to race the Tour next year? 

Sure, those licenses will probably land somewhere (Barloworld, Slipstream). Or will they? It will be interesting to see.


----------

