The UCI - Enforcers of the omerta?

iainf72

http://www.cyclingheroes.info/id1060.html

Parts of it sound a little far fetched but then again, this is cycling.

As I've said before, anyone who provides a full confession and names names in the current climate is an idiot. No one will defend them or help them out.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Well yes, but if the teams weren't worried about extra testing then why would they worry. Same if they were so convinced of what a clean, reformed rider would bring to the team - why not employ them?

iainf72

Indeed - Jorg and Pat are quite good though. Ok, so we're not sure how much of that is down to preperation but still, they're better than a bottle carrier.

Cycling fans are as bad though because we quite often demand full confessions and the are happy to hang them out to dry when they do.

secretsqirrel

I was thinking along similar lines when I contributed to the 'Lance Armstrong and Disco' thread,
We would like to see Ullrich, Vino, Basso and co. queuing for the confession box but redemption is of course out of the question, and they know it.

off the back

Have to agree!

It is hard to work out to what extent the riders are victims. Obviously if you decide to break the rules you are a cheat, but why did things get so bad and could you compete without doping. The UCI were part of the problem. The UCI failed the sport both the riders and the fans to not do more to combate doping. Then to turn around and alienate riders that have served there time is the hight of hypocricy!!!

If the riders are to be banished then then most certainly McQuaid, Verbruggen and the UCI suits need to go too!!

LangerDan

Why would any team give them a contract at the moment? Leaving aside the issue of whether a team (and sponsor) wants to hire a rider with a high-profile drugs bust, there are some other more practical considerations

- The earliest either of them will be available is the middle of next year

- There is a glut of current pro riders available at the moment with the possibility of more being available next year as sponsors contracts end.

- There is always someone younger, faster and cheaper coming up through the ranks.

- Finally, both are good but not THAT good that a team would hold a berth for them until late '08 / early '09.

I think that if the UCI had it in for the guys, they'd have gone for the fully 2 -year ban for Sinkewitz and coughing up the years salary. For a guy that has admitted to the level of PED usage he has, a 12 month suspension plus "donation" wasn't a bad deal.

jimmythecuckoo

Does anyone else think this code of Omerta thing is a little bit Dan Brown?

I would love to believe that their is some code of honour within the peloton protecting each other from being exposed for drug use.

For me the simple truth is that it is isn't an ancient unwritten code going back before Tom Simpson's era, it is a number of bullies using intimidation and their lofty positions within the cycling pecking order to get silence by fear. Hardly a noble code.

vermooten

Would you employ a rider who's doped? There are a lot of good riders out there, it's a buyers' market. I can believe the consiracy theory to some extent, especially given the UCI's previous head-in-the-sand approach to doping, but isn't it much simpler to explain their lack of employment as being that no sponsor wants to risk it?

iainf72

vermooten wrote:

Would you employ a rider who's doped? There are a lot of good riders out there, it's a buyers' market. I can believe the consiracy theory to some extent, especially given the UCI's previous head-in-the-sand approach to doping, but isn't it much simpler to explain their lack of employment as being that no sponsor wants to risk it?

No really.

Do you think Basso will have a problem getting a team?

Sinkewitz position is similar to Millar's a couple of years ago and Millar had signed a contract by now. It could be the market is tighter, yes, but I think there is something afoot.

jimmythecuckoo

vermooten wrote:

Would you employ a rider who's doped?

My main challenge would be knowing if they had or hadnt doped...

off the back

I dont think the risk is on whether the lads doped or not. 3/4 of the peleton have skeletons in the closset. The market conditions have had an effect but also if you take a guy out of competition for two years how long will it be before he gets back to a top level - certainly 18-24months. Neither lad is a spring chicken so why take a risk unless they are willing to ride for buttons.

That also raises the question that if a rider is banned for 2years - can he be tested. I think there should be a rule that if you want to race again you must continue to take out a licence for the 12months prior to returning to competition. This would leave these riders open to testing for this period. Otherwise a rider could dope and train massive volumes and come back in at a very competitive standard. (anyone remember Casagrande winning San Sebestian 1st race back after a drugs ban ....!).

iainf72

off the back wrote:

Neither lad is a spring chicken so why take a risk unless they are willing to ride for buttons.

Sinkewitz is only 27.

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

vermooten wrote:

Would you employ a rider who's doped? There are a lot of good riders out there, it's a buyers' market. I can believe the consiracy theory to some extent, especially given the UCI's previous head-in-the-sand approach to doping, but isn't it much simpler to explain their lack of employment as being that no sponsor wants to risk it?

No really.

Do you think Basso will have a problem getting a team?

Sinkewitz position is similar to Millar's a couple of years ago and Millar had signed a contract by now. It could be the market is tighter, yes, but I think there is something afoot.

Basso IS having problems getting a team - he's banned from signing for ProTour teams until 2010, so his only possibilities lie with the likes of Barloworld as they are a Continental pro squad. Those squads dont normally have the budget to sign and support big-name riders at the level to which they have become accustomed.

I don't know whether Sinkewitz has to serve a two-year ProTour exclusion (assuming it is pro-rata with his competition ban)

In any case Millar had won World championships as well as Tour and Vuelta stages. Sinkewitzs palmares are not as good. Granted ,Millar could have been ripped to the t!ts for his wins, but the same could apply to Stinky.

If the guys want a gig, there is always "Rock & Road"

I think the lawyer is probably more worried about Pat ans Jorg being able to pay their legal fees.

off the back

What is the story with Basso if Barloworld got promoted/moved to Protour. Does he have to leave the team ...?

Kléber

Barloworld can say "arriverderci" to their invitation to the Tour de France if they sign Basso.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

Barloworld can say "arriverderci" to their invitation to the Tour de France if they sign Basso.

I doubt it very much.

Bit of sweet talking to ASO and his winning smile will do it.

And why on earth would any team WANT a ProTour license now? So they can take part in a pile of crappy races?

timoid.

LangerDan wrote:

Why would any team give them a contract at the moment?

I'd give Sinkewitz a trial sans dope, but JJ has had his day and I don't know if he'd be worth the baggage.

Basso I wouldn't touch.

iainf72

Timoid. wrote:

Basso I wouldn't touch.

You'd be mad. He'll still be good when he gets back.

timoid.

iainf72 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Basso I wouldn't touch.

You'd be mad. He'll still be good when he gets back.

But something tells me he'll go back doping. The temptation to get back to the top will be to strong. Add to this the fact that he's also on Gripper's naughty list and to parapharase Marsellus Wallace: If Basso goes to train in Indochina she'll want a n*gger hidin' in a bowl of rice waitin' to pop a test syringe in his ass.

That and the boo hiss from the public won't help the team he goes to.

iainf72

Timoid. wrote:

That and the boo hiss from the public won't help the team he goes to.

He ain't going to be booed by the Italians.

But I agree, by all means test the living bejeepers out of him. Ditto anyone coming back from a doping ban, why not. I know he's being tested now while he's training. If he's done his ban and comes back there is nothing to stop aggressive target testing.

If I was cheeky I'd suggest the UCI weren't interested in doing that. They'd prefer someone to come back from a doping ban and still perform at much the same level they did before so it doesn't look like doping was such a big deal.

ian222

:shock:

n*gger hidin' in a bowl of rice waitin'

Why use the quote?

Was there no other way of expressing your point of view without using that offensive word?

timoid.

ian222 wrote:

:shock:

n*gger hidin' in a bowl of rice waitin'

Why use the quote?

Was there no other way of expressing your point of view without using that offensive word?

No. Mr Wallace sums up my thoughts on this matter succinctly.


Watch the film, see the context and get a life bud.

jimmythecuckoo

iainf72 wrote:

If I was cheeky I'd suggest the UCI weren't interested in doing that. They'd prefer someone to come back from a doping ban and still perform at much the same level they did before so it doesn't look like doping was such a big deal.

I had never thought like that before, but there is a strange logic in there somewhere...

timoid.

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If I was cheeky I'd suggest the UCI weren't interested in doing that. They'd prefer someone to come back from a doping ban and still perform at much the same level they did before so it doesn't look like doping was such a big deal.

I had never thought like that before, but there is a strange logic in there somewhere...

But Gripper ain't UCI, she's WADA and she'll nail Basso if she can.

iainf72

Timoid. wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If I was cheeky I'd suggest the UCI weren't interested in doing that. They'd prefer someone to come back from a doping ban and still perform at much the same level they did before so it doesn't look like doping was such a big deal.

I had never thought like that before, but there is a strange logic in there somewhere...

But Gripper ain't UCI, she's WADA and she'll nail Basso if she can.

No she's not, she's UCI. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13563.0.html

Do you know anything about cycling? :P

ian222

ian222 wrote:


n*gger hidin' in a bowl of rice waitin'

Why use the quote?

Was there no other way of expressing your point of view without using that offensive word?



No. Mr Wallace sums up my thoughts on this matter succinctly.


Watch the film, see the context and get a life bud.

"Bud" I have a life so thanks for the advice. As a black cyclist I just find that offensive and if you feel that was essential to expressing a point then maybe you need to get the life, Bud!

timoid.

iainf72 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If I was cheeky I'd suggest the UCI weren't interested in doing that. They'd prefer someone to come back from a doping ban and still perform at much the same level they did before so it doesn't look like doping was such a big deal.

I had never thought like that before, but there is a strange logic in there somewhere...

But Gripper ain't UCI, she's WADA and she'll nail Basso if she can.

No she's not, she's UCI. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13563.0.html

Do you know anything about cycling? :P

Nyeh. I always thought she was WADA. Shows what I know.

I still wouldn't sign Basso cos he's a Bollix (no offence to other Italians intended here).

iainf72

Timoid. wrote:

Nyeh. I always thought she was WADA. Shows what I know.

I shall lay my cards on the table. Last year I expressed my doubts about T-Mobile.

This year I shall be keeping an eye on Anne Gripper

timoid.

ian222 wrote:

ian222 wrote:


n*gger hidin' in a bowl of rice waitin'

Why use the quote?

Was there no other way of expressing your point of view without using that offensive word?



No. Mr Wallace sums up my thoughts on this matter succinctly.


Watch the film, see the context and get a life bud.

"Bud" I have a life so thanks for the advice. As a black cyclist I just find that offensive and if you feel that was essential to expressing a point then maybe you need to get the life, Bud!

It's a quote from a black man talking about his minions (black or white or possibly yellow (can I say that?)) doing his dirty work.

No offence intended.

timoid.

iainf72 wrote:

This year I shall be keeping an eye on Anne Gripper

Only cos you think she's a hottie you sick puppy.

secretsqirrel

iainf72 wrote:

I shall lay my cards on the table. Last year I expressed my doubts about T-Mobile.

This year I shall be keeping an eye on Anne Gripper

Oh good. I have a irrational, mistrust of her, and her methods. Call it a bad vibe.
Have you got anything on her to give me some reassurance that my intuition isn't playing games?