Discovery / Tailwind to announce end of team today

iainf72

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... down_N.htm

That will please some of you.

Stark.

Yes, but if Discovery goes, who's everyone going to put at the top of their hate list? A poll might be in order.

I'd also like to point out that the article uses the word 'winningest'. I know the Americans have come up with a few alternative spellings and phrases in their time, but what kind of word is that?

Moose11

Whao, I didn't see that coming. I knew they were losing sponsorship but didn't think they would be going altogether.

No matter what people think of them they were a dynasty and the team of the era. They definately got a lot of people into the sport of cycling.

iainf72

Let's see, team to hate.

Ex Doper in Charge - Check
Many Positive Tests when riders leave the team - Check
Run by an American - Check

Yes, T-Mobile are the obvious choice.

Kléber

Listening to the audio interview with David Walsh that was posted on here, when it covers the hidden parts of the Vaughters-Andreu IM conversation, which alledges Bruyneel pouring Landis' transfusion blood down the drain in a hotel room in front of Armstrong, a move to spite Landis for daring to sign with Phonak, I can only celebrate the exit of Bruyneel from the sport.

No doubt it'll be temporary though..

iainf72

With the Hincapie going to T-Mobile rumour, and also talk of other Americans joining them, I suspect Levi might be one other the other.

The Russian / Ukraine guys will go to Tinkoff.

Devolder to a Belgie team - Q.S?

andyp

Frankly, if you live by the sword you die by the sword.

It's a terrible indictment of the state of cycling that the team of the current Tour de France winner can't get a sponsor for next season.

Let's hope it's the end of the line for Bruyneel in top level cycling. The sport is better off without malignant influences like him.

Eurostar

YIPPEEEE!!

Excuse me while I go and skip around the room....this is even better than a stage win for Wiggins! :P :P :P

Ding dong, the Witch is Dead
Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Yes, let the joyous news be spread
The wicked Old Witch at last is DEAD!

The co-owners of the team are not just Bruyneel and Lance, but Lance's lawyer!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

Ding dong, the Witch is Dead.......

iainf72

andyp wrote:

It's a terrible indictment of the state of cycling that the team of the current Tour de France winner can't get a sponsor for next season.

Yes. And it doesn't bode well for the next few years at all.

If winning the biggest race in the world isn't enough, then why would anyone put money into a doo-hickey sport like cycling?

Kléber

Bruyneel had a good team. I mean he had willing sponsors with deep pockets, not some Belgian biscuit company. He had a big support staff and plenty of riders on his books who riding clean could beat plenty of other clean riders too.

He should have introduced a testing regime like CSC, a few thousand dollars a year to appoint an independent expert or a panel of boffins to review the data from the blood tests and the sponsors would be falling over each other to back him.

Instead, he chose to follow the short cuts to publicity, to let his riders associate with Doctor Ferrari, to sign riders shunned by everyone else only to be forced to sack them when the heat became too much, to blacklist journalists who asked questions he didn't like, to clam up when asked about his past whilst others were confessing their failures. If you build up a secretive and furtive reputation, no wonder risk-averse companies will run a mile.

Here's hoping Vaughters can have the last laugh and sign a couple more riders who don't need "25 injections a day"...

Eurostar

Maybe it's a good thing? Perhaps the sponsors have finally woken up to the notion that they have a responsibility to invest only in clean teams. Hence Slipstream's success?

iainf72

Eurostar wrote:

Maybe it's a good thing? Perhaps the sponsors have finally woken up to the notion that they have a responsibility to invest only in clean teams. Hence Slipstream's success?

Doubt it very much.

"Clean" is just being used as advertising spin.

jimmythecuckoo

It's a great day!

Eurostar

iainf72 wrote:

Eurostar wrote:

Maybe it's a good thing? Perhaps the sponsors have finally woken up to the notion that they have a responsibility to invest only in clean teams. Hence Slipstream's success?

Doubt it very much.

"Clean" is just being used as advertising spin.

Clean makes for very good advertising spin - nothing wrong with that, if no dirt is being hidden. I have faith in the ACE as guardians. Vaughters' success and T-Mobile staying on are good things. Bruyneel's doping machine coming off the rails is another good thing. The sport is getting a lot of coverage in the mainstream media - more than it's had in the UK for decades, at any rate - and there will be plenty of sports marketing experts wondering what to make of it. Do they keep their clients away? Or try to get on the clean bandwagon and give their brands a powerful message? I think the latter will happen and that the sport will be well funded in 2008.

RichN95.

Stark. wrote:

Yes, but if Discovery goes, who's everyone going to put at the top of their hate list? A poll might be in order.

Whoever hires Contador - probably Astana or Saunier Duval

iainf72

Eurostar wrote:

Clean makes for very good advertising spin - nothing wrong with that, if no dirt is being hidden. I have faith in the ACE as guardians. Vaughters' success and T-Mobile staying on are good things

I am of the opinion, and have been since this time last year that T-Mobile's "efforts" are pure marketing and a complete load of balls. They sicken me to be frank.

And I'm not the only one.

Slipstream, yes, I have some faith in them.

I think the "clean" thing is okay for cycling fans but I'm not convinced the general public know about all this stuff.

thatlondon

I personally don't hate Discovery nor Bruyneel.

Are Discovery the only team to have dopers, no.
Is Bruyneel the first team director to be implicated as allegedly knowing about doping, no.

I personally believe almost every team in the tour de france has riders who are doping. The team director is responsible for those riders and I think its utter rubbish when they pretend that they didn't know what the riders are up to.

Conveniently now there is no team sponsored doping only riders taking it upon them selves. In my opinion the team Director cares about one thing that's exposure for his sponsors which in turn mean a fat profit for the team. If doping riders can test their own heamocrit levels to make sure that they are not too high, why in hell cant the teams run the same tests to look for something strange. Its simple because they are not interested.

As for the UCI and the ASO they are the biggest bunch of Jokers, how about if a rider tests positive he is banned for life and the full team is kicked from the pro tour. I bet we would see more real internal anti doping procedures.

And as for Armstrong ,do I hate Armstrong, no. If he was doping then you can be pretty sure that most of the others riders were too, I think its a naive argument to say he won purely because he and his team used rEPO. Everyone up there at the front of the peloton were doing the same thing.

What about Indurain or Merx or god forbid don't accuse Lemond, doping was barely tested when they rode and I'm sure nobody would disagree that they were superb riders. Did they use drugs, personally I couldn't care less its in the past, again if they did they were not the only ones and the drugs only put them on an even field not gave them advantage.

What I care about is the future, I love cycle racing and Im sick to the back teeth of the bloody doping stories, and authors like Walsh peddling his 'he said she said' form of investigative journalism.

It's a simple solution the authorities need to stop messing about and take real action with dopers. Its what they should have done 10 years ago. So for the disappearance of Discovery, I couldn't give a damn. It's not a good thing, its inconsequential unless the sort out the sport completely they will be replaced by another sponsor with riders possibly doping to get race wins, and thats all the sponsor cares about.

Just look at T-mobile how many doping problems have they put up all the way back to when it was T-mobiles parent company Deutsche Telecom that sponsored the team.

They have just extended the sponsorship to 2010, what does this say, to me it says, doping is not hurting our business so I don't care what happens as long as my pretty pink logo is all over the media.

Sorry about the rant I feel better now

LangerDan

Eurostar wrote:

Maybe it's a good thing? Perhaps the sponsors have finally woken up to the notion that they have a responsibility to invest only in clean teams. Hence Slipstream's success?

What success? Certainly, they have done well at the level they compete at now, but they haven't gone toe-to-toe with the big boys yet. Then they'll have a battle on their hands as the line-up is fairly average.

Kléber

ThatLondon, Bruyneel's been pretty ruthless with his riders and media management. His quote in July that "cycling hasn't really got a doping problem" was priceless, even if the context meant he was saying other sports are covering up. He just doesn't seem to have evolved and adopted the language needed, he sometimes appears to prefer silence and stonewalling to open and honest speech.

Anyway, we could all be opening the champagne too quickly. Why is Contador giving the press conference from a Spanish government building? If this was about the headline sponsor not being replaced, the settings might be different no?

Eurostar

LangerDan, I mean their success at raising money and signing top riders. They seem to be on a fast track. It usually takes longer to get a new team to their level. You can bet they'll get a wild card for the Tour as soon as they want one. And they seem to be doing it all simply by raising the bar for testing. Hear hear. I'm sure other team owners and managers are quaking in their boots.

LangerDan

Eurostar
The team line-up unfortunately is not top level. Millar isn't as dominant as in the past. Backstedt, who is excellent on his day, has spent so long on the injured list that I'm not sure he can make a full recovery. Another of their riders is apparently on a significant medical treatment programme for bi-polar disorder and is nowhere near his form of 12 months ago. Several of the existing roster, the likes of Danny Pate etc. are excellent at their current level but it's a big step-up. (Slipstreams european appearances to date have been at the likes of the Rás)

Its a novel plan, though

- put together a team,
- have a number of the key personnel (riders, management and external consultants) associated with suspected or proven drug use in the past.
- Get sponsored by a Mexican restaurant company with no presence outside of North America, yet have the team compete in Europe
-Don't spend a huge amount of money on it - no Evans, Boonen etc.
- Make sure the world is told your squad is clean.

Then if you win - great. You've proven that it can be done without drugs.

If you're beaten, then the implication is that those that beat you are EPO-sucking Eurotrash.

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

Eurostar
Then if you win - great. You've proven that it can be done without drugs.

If you're beaten, then the implication is that those that beat you are EPO-sucking Eurotrash.

Well put.

And it's the same with all these "clean" teams - If it's not sport wide, the implication is anyone who beats you is on something.

CarlosFerreiro

This is all new to me, but it seemed to me like Slipstream were maybe signing riders that were "media friendly", that were likely to be able to get a little interview spot regardless of winning or not, and were maybe looking at things from a point of view of how much exposure they could get overall, rather than basing it all on just podiums?

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

Well put.

And it's the same with all these "clean" teams - If it's not sport wide, the implication is anyone who beats you is on something.

Yes, but this is only because as Eurostar said, the bar is getting raised ever higher. Of course, this could also mean "just don't get caught" but in general it's putting the squeeze on the other teams to raise their game.

I'd like to ask Quick-Step, Saunier Duval, Rabobank and other big budget teams why they won't appoint an independent agency or expert to monitor the scope and efficiency of their anti-doping regime? Yes it costs money but for €200,000 a year, a sponsor can buy peace of mind and the team can make bold and righteous claims all season long.

Eurostar

I realise the Slipstream roster is very middle of the road, and all they can hope for next year is the 'glorious failure' prize. My point is that they are handing responsibility for anti-doping to a credible outside body (neatly sidelining WADA and the UCI, by the way). CSC and T-Mob have dipped their toe in the water of external supervision, and no doubt the French teams claim they already have it with their national federation. What I'm waiting for is other teams to see that Vaughters has cleverly used the ACE to get unwarranted hype from a mediocre team and copy him. Then i think the ACE would effectively take over from WADA and the UCI and the sport could really move forward.

Am I being naive as usual?

I really hope the ACE knows its onions and brings a bit of corporate American efficiency to the mess that pro cycling is in. It will be interesting to see what happens when they catch someone. For the moment the ACE are superclean because they haven't cocked up yet and we know naff all about them or their procedures. Do they have the money, people, organisation, contacts, influence, crediblity or power to supervise a...God forbid...Spanish team?

Millar keeps banging on about cohesion and he's dead right - we've got WADA, UCI and national orgs all doing their own thing, plus a few independent doctors/universities being offered up as some sort of authority by individual teams. What we need is a global organisation to take over. I can't see WADA or the UCI doing it. Maybe the grand tour organisations are the ones with the real clout. I wonder if the ASO is having secret talks to cooperate with the ACE. Or will the French just do their own thing as usual and invent something to replace WADA, UCI and the ACE? At any rate, I'm positive that the UCI will not have much power next year. They're just a busted flush now.

Thinking about it, I can't see the ASO handing over the reins to a bunch of yanks. I bet they think this is their chance to kick the UCI and the ProTour into touch AND keep cycling power on the Continent where it belongs. If they could come up with an agreement for policing the Italian and Spanish teams I think they would rule.

thatlondon

Kléber, Don't get me wrong I agree with you, I'm not saying I agree with Bruyneel and the way he runs the team. I just don't care for any of the team directors I blame them all for the problems in the sport.

I look forward to seeing Slipstream race, but rest assured if the rest of the teams don't clean up their act then how will they be competitive. If they are not competitive they will not get media exposure and thats all the sponsor is interested in.

I'm a big fan of Miller, he was sucked into the doping culture, made his mistakes admitted he did the wrong thing and has done a great job to get back and race well. I think he had a good tour and I look forward to the next few years. I feel however he is racing at a disadvantage, the peloton is still very very dirty.

As for Contador, I'm waiting for him to be stripped of his title or to be banned.

One thing I don't understand though, is the significance of out of competition testing. I thought that rEPO and testosterone is a temporary enhancement as soon as you stop taking it then your levels return to normal. Does this stuff have benefits to training, and if so in what way. If it has no lasting benefit to muscle development post use why do riders take it out of competition and organisations waste money testing out of competition. Surely its money better spent to test every rider during competition.

andyp

thatlondon wrote:

As for Contador, I'm waiting for him to be stripped of his title or to be banned.

Rumour has it he'll divulge a bit more than was expected at a press conference in Madrid today...

iainf72

andyp wrote:

thatlondon wrote:

As for Contador, I'm waiting for him to be stripped of his title or to be banned.

Rumour has it he'll divulge a bit more than was expected at a press conference in Madrid today...

WRONG!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070810/2/ulta.html

thatlondon

Call me cynical but how many times have we heard this "I have never committed an act of doping, and have never participated in an act of doping," come from the mouths of dopers

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

andyp wrote:

thatlondon wrote:

As for Contador, I'm waiting for him to be stripped of his title or to be banned.

Rumour has it he'll divulge a bit more than was expected at a press conference in Madrid today...

WRONG!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070810/2/ulta.html

Damn.

Hands up who believes him?

iainf72

andyp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

andyp wrote:

thatlondon wrote:

As for Contador, I'm waiting for him to be stripped of his title or to be banned.

Rumour has it he'll divulge a bit more than was expected at a press conference in Madrid today...

WRONG!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070810/2/ulta.html

Damn.

Hands up who believes him?

I need to read the whole text. If he used the word "cheat", then I know he's on the level.

Or does it only count if you say it in English?