Cadel Evans to win last year's Tour?

Eurostar

Have a look at this from velonews yesterday -

* Tour de France chief Christian Prudhomme told AFP that organizers will refuse entry to any rider or teams failing to sign the anti-doping pledge. "We will block their entry to the race," Prudhomme told AFP. According to Prudhomme, three teams - T-Mobile, Rabobank, and Agritubel - have already responded. *

So. Assume Landis loses his case. Then Pereiro refuses to sign the charter - he's already said he'll quit cycling before giving DNA. Prudhomme will then say that nobody can be declared winner of last year's Tour if they don't sign the charter. Surely Kloden won't sign. Or Sastre. But Cadel Evans might - he professed to be delighted when Ullrich and Basso were thrown off the Tour.

Menchov was next, and Rabobank has already signed on his behalf.

And finally, please step on the podium in 3rd place for the 2006 Tour de France...Cyril Dessel!

Or have I got this completely wrong?

Noodley

Yes, you have it completely wrong. There is nothing to indicate anything retrospective.

Eurostar

How can you be sure? The UCI statement says nothing about people who don't sign the charter being barred from the Tour. It seems that this is Prudhomme's own initative. If he's got the balls to bar anybody who won't sign, surely he's got the balls not to give last year's trophy to Pereiro?

Noodley

OK, you make up the story for yourself as you see it - I'll just read what is on the page.

Eurostar

Here's the velonews story (sorry, I said it was on cyclingnews - my mistake.) Other papers have repeated the velonews story. Go to Google News and search on Tour de France.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12437.0.html

This it the Guardian's version:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/sto ... 91,00.html

RichN95.

I hope he's not declared the winner - I had a œ10 each way bet on him at 66/1 and obviously I no longer have the betting slip.

I tend to think Cadel is clean though - he's the only big name road racer I've heard use the word 'cheat' to describe dopers.

Unknown

I was annoyed at Bugno and Mosers comments against this initiative. Moser's connection to dr Conconi and Bugno's involvement with the mailing of some kind of drug back in the late 90s to his parents leave me not looking up to him as I did in 1990-but then I don't look to to anyone like that now. I'd ask the directors to sign too, for themselves during their careers, but then that would never happen. And a properly official structure for teams, no 'soigneurs', just massuer, a Dr, mechanic and DS. From what I see the soigneur does what a Dr would be too scared to do.

And Manzano says, of the riders who still speak to him, that in the peleton 'nothing has changed' and riders are just more careful now. Plus, will Valverde sue over the patch claim?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /jun21news


________Our behaviour is a function of our experience.

Unknown

Dave - why do you think teams need a Doctor? I don't know if you read Rouleur, the magazine that Rapha produce, but they have a very long interview with Greg Lemond in the current edition and his view is that any cycling team that has a Doctor in their ranks has him (or her) there purely to assist with doping.

Unknown

Perhaps they could change the doctor for a physio.

Unknown

Bit harsh to prevent teams having doctors - the riders must need genuine medical advice as well.
However, I do think that the team doctors could possibly be more closely monitored in some way.

Also, aren't the soigneurs there to do the dogsbody type work like running around with towels and musettes, as well as the dodgy stuff?

Unknown

did none of lemond's teams have team doctors then..??

Unknown

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bigdawg</i>

did none of lemond's teams have team doctors then..??
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">According to his interview, no. He said he saw a doctor at the health check before the Tour and then again at the end of the season. If he needed to consult a doctor during a race then he'd go to the one provided by the race organisation.

I'm not sure I want to ban teams from having a doctor but I do question why one is needed on a full time basis. It does seem odd to me but if anyone here has a better understanding then I'd like to hear about it.

Unknown

If thats the case why do they not 'ban' the team doctor, and just have a team of UCI sanctioned and approved doctors to be made available to any team / rider that needs them??

Unknown

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bigdawg</i>

If thats the case why do they not 'ban' the team doctor, and just have a team of UCI sanctioned and approved doctors to be made available to any team / rider that needs them??
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't really see it makes much of a difference one way or the other. If riders wanted to dope, they could see a different doctor on the sly. Alternatively I expect they could probably bribe one of the UCI approved doctors.

monty_dogcp

It appears to me that it is the soigneurs who administer and traffic in the drugs and the doctors are typically there to monitor the health of the riders - in a few cases, the doctors have been involved in the systematic administration of the products, but it doesn't apear to be general practise. Regretfully, I think the doctors are a good thing as they can at least monitors the rider's health - if the riders going to take something, he'll take it without the doctor's consent anyway. A positive step may be for a pool of doctors to be employed by the UCI and assigned to each team to monitor the riders during the season - therefore their obligations would be towards the rider's health and the UCI, rather than being a paid-up member of the team and therefore facing a conflict of interest with the DS and sponsors etc. OK, they'd still be prone to influence and payments from scrupulous DS - so maybe they'd need to be changed regularly, but to remove doctors IMO would be a bad and retrograde step.

Unknown

<i>
I don't really see it makes much of a difference one way or the other. If riders wanted to dope, they could see a different doctor on the sly. Alternatively I expect they could probably bribe one of the UCI approved doctors</i>

true,...

back on track, gotta say though Evans was my pick as the dark horse to watch out for this year..

Timeless

well he certainly kept himself well hidden behind someone else's wheel for the entirety of last year's tour

Eurostar

Probably because that was the only way he could ride clean and not be dropped by the dopers.

g3nzo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Eurostar</i>

So. Assume Landis loses his case. Then Pereiro refuses to sign the charter - he's already said he'll quit cycling before giving DNA.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I've read elsewhere (one of the mags) that Pereiro is misquoted as saying that he wouldnt supply DNA. He didnt sound too happy in the interview that this rumour was doing the rounds, can't say i blame him.

ynyswen24cp

Andy p

LeMond seems to send out confused signals: on the one hand his statements about doping are clear and forthright (even if saying all team doctors are there to supervise doping is a bit over the top) on the other he was reported as hugging Ulrich and welcoming him to the ranks of the retired.