Will Pat ever "get it"?

iainf72

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Pat ... 78276.html

“Why should ASO be able to chose the teams for the Tour de France when every other race organisers accepts the rules of the sport? They have to accept that the UCI set the rules for the sport.”

So RCS choose the teams within the rules and he whinges about that too? You could put me in charge and I'd do a better job. Come to think of it, my 4 year old could do a better job.

This is also cool - I bet you they're quaking in their boots

“This is crux of the whole problem between ASO and the UCI. ASO don't follow the rules. Now it's ASO's choice: They either follow the rules of the UCI or get out of the UCI. One or the other.”

nwallace

Meh, standard French sports stuff really.

Le MAns was part of various FIA Endurance race championships until the start of FIA GT at which point they decided to tell the FIA to sod off as they wanted to keep the out and out sports cars (Prototypes). Knowing fine well that the Le Mans 24hrs could survive as a FFSA (French Motorsport Authority) International Permit. Due to lack of qualifying events, Don Panoz sets up American qualifying rounds (ALMS) and use existing european GT events eventuaklly starting LMES (European Le Mans Series)

Now show of hands please,
Who has heard of the Le Mans 24hrs. And who has Heard of the FIA GT Championship.

Same for cycling now:
Who has heard of Le Tour De France? and who has heard of Pro Tour?

The TDF does not need the pro tour to draw riders.
With the Giro and Vuelta organisers in tow the ASO could easily produce their own series of qualifying events that would mean even if the UCI threatened riders with bans for taking part in non-UCI events you would probably see all but those with Olympic hopes in the "breakaway" series. And even then the ASO etc. May be strong enough to worry the IOC.

deejay

nwallace wrote:

Meh, standard French sports stuff really.

Le MAns was part of various FIA Endurance race championships until the start of FIA GT at which point they decided to tell the FIA to sod off as they wanted to keep the out and out sports cars (Prototypes). Knowing fine well that the Le Mans 24hrs could survive as a FFSA (French Motorsport Authority) International Permit. Due to lack of qualifying events, Don Panoz sets up American qualifying rounds (ALMS) and use existing european GT events eventuaklly starting LMES (European Le Mans Series)

Now show of hands please,
Who has heard of the Le Mans 24hrs. And who has Heard of the FIA GT Championship.

Same for cycling now:
Who has heard of Le Tour De France? and who has heard of Pro Tour?

The TDF does not need the pro tour to draw riders.
With the Giro and Vuelta organisers in tow the ASO could easily produce their own series of qualifying events that would mean even if the UCI threatened riders with bans for taking part in non-UCI events you would probably see all but those with Olympic hopes in the "breakaway" series. And even then the ASO etc. May be strong enough to worry the IOC.

In full agreement with that and the GIRO Org have something else on their minds with only 14 Pro Tour Teams and Slipstream-Barloworld-Tinkof etc, but no Credit Agricole.
So are they having a dig at the French ???

sing_for_absolution

deejay wrote:

nwallace wrote:

Meh, standard French sports stuff really.

Le MAns was part of various FIA Endurance race championships until the start of FIA GT at which point they decided to tell the FIA to sod off as they wanted to keep the out and out sports cars (Prototypes). Knowing fine well that the Le Mans 24hrs could survive as a FFSA (French Motorsport Authority) International Permit. Due to lack of qualifying events, Don Panoz sets up American qualifying rounds (ALMS) and use existing european GT events eventuaklly starting LMES (European Le Mans Series)

Now show of hands please,
Who has heard of the Le Mans 24hrs. And who has Heard of the FIA GT Championship.

Same for cycling now:
Who has heard of Le Tour De France? and who has heard of Pro Tour?

The TDF does not need the pro tour to draw riders.
With the Giro and Vuelta organisers in tow the ASO could easily produce their own series of qualifying events that would mean even if the UCI threatened riders with bans for taking part in non-UCI events you would probably see all but those with Olympic hopes in the "breakaway" series. And even then the ASO etc. May be strong enough to worry the IOC.

In full agreement with that and the GIRO Org have something else on their minds with only 14 Pro Tour Teams and Slipstream-Barloworld-Tinkof etc, but no Credit Agricole.
So are they having a dig at the French ???

No. FDJ and AG2R have been invited. As they wanted more Italian teams, they might've just chosen Credit Agricole as a random axing.

vermooten

In general terms, McQuaid doesn't have the leadership skills needed to bring ASO et al back into line with the UCI. It's admittedly a tall order - Nelson Mandela in his prime would have found it tough - but the UCI really should consider getting him some training and setting him an objective of sorting this mess out otherwise he's out.

andyp

vermooten wrote:

In general terms, McQuaid doesn't have the leadership skills needed to bring ASO et al back into line with the UCI. It's admittedly a tall order - Nelson Mandela in his prime would have found it tough - but the UCI really should consider getting him some training and setting him an objective of sorting this mess out otherwise he's out.

The only problem being that Pat McQuaid is the boss of the UCI (or a Verbruggen operated puppet depending on your viewpoint) so who is going to tell him to shut up?

Why the UCI persist in pushing out daft press releases full of posturing nonsense is beyond me. Invite the race organisers over, bring in some experts in arbitration and sort out the problems. Then publish a press release.

LangerDan

andyp wrote:

vermooten wrote:

In general terms, McQuaid doesn't have the leadership skills needed to bring ASO et al back into line with the UCI. It's admittedly a tall order - Nelson Mandela in his prime would have found it tough - but the UCI really should consider getting him some training and setting him an objective of sorting this mess out otherwise he's out.

The only problem being that Pat McQuaid is the boss of the UCI (or a Verbruggen operated puppet depending on your viewpoint) so who is going to tell him to shut up?

Why the UCI persist in pushing out daft press releases full of posturing nonsense is beyond me. Invite the race organisers over, bring in some experts in arbitration and sort out the problems. Then publish a press release.

Unlikely to happen. When McQuaid was elected head honcho, his main opponent- Gregorio Moreno- was widely regarded as a representative of the big race organisers. The battle for control of cycling has been going on for quite a while now. The drugs issue has highlighted a long running conflict - it didn't cause it.

aurelio_-_banned

"McQuaid said, according to Reuters, that Tour de France organizers should invite Astana. He noted the ProTour team's completely new management, calling it blameless for past problems. "They're doing everything that is needed and doing even more. They should be given credit for that," said McQuaid."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /feb07news

The above further convinces me that McQuaid and the UCI are still much more a part of the problem than the solution with regards the current crisis within the 'sport'. I certainly won't be watching a moment of this year's Tour if Astana are allowed to take part.

I also see no reason why the Grand Tour organisers should be expected to hand over control of the TV rights to their races to the UCI, which after all is what the whole 'Pro Tour' fiasco is about. The couple of percent cut offered by the organisers seems to be more than generous to me. After all, this would still bring in a significant amount of money to the UCI, not a bad return for buying a couple of jerseys and compiling a list of rider performances.

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

The above further convinces me that McQuaid and the UCI are still much more a part of the problem than the solution with regards the current crisis within the 'sport'. I certainly won't be watching a moment of this year's Tour if Astana are allowed to take part.

Would you watch it if Barloworld, Saunier, Liquigas, Quick.Step or Lampre were there?

Or will Bruyneel not being involved suddenly fix everything else?

deejay

andyp wrote:

The only problem being that Pat McQuaid is the boss of the UCI (or a Verbruggen operated puppet depending on your viewpoint) so who is going to tell him to shut up?

Why the UCI persist in pushing out daft press releases full of posturing nonsense is beyond me. Invite the race organisers over, bring in some experts in arbitration and sort out the problems. Then publish a press release.

The UCI are the custodians of the rules and not organisers of events and like your own Federations should oversee the running of the Sport.
The UCI overstepped the mark when they moved the Vuelta from April to September and got away with it and since then have kept trying to interfere and meddle their so called authority.
Like the Olympics the UCI can award the World Championships and make recommendations about other events.
The thing that should be under discussion is the "Constitution" of the UCI and how much it allows them to meddle and then it's the Federations to change the constitution and we should be allowed our say when voting at Federation Level

The GT's are not breaking any rules and are operating within their Federations.

girofan

iainf72 wrote:

aurelio wrote:

The above further convinces me that McQuaid and the UCI are still much more a part of the problem than the solution with regards the current crisis within the 'sport'. I certainly won't be watching a moment of this year's Tour if Astana are allowed to take part.

Would you watch it if Barloworld, Saunier, Liquigas, Quick.Step or Lampre were there?

Or will Bruyneel not being involved suddenly fix everything else?

Aah! Mr Bruyneel. I thought mention of that s**t would come up eventually. It's not that his exclusion would fix anything, but it sends out a message that any more tricksy double talk such as "We have never had a positive test," will no longer pull the wool over the eyes of either the organisors, UCI or the fans. It has taken the big tour organisors to at last try and put a stop to several teams putting two fingers up to the sport.
It should have been Mcquaid, but all he's good for is a stupid soundbite. I will watch the Giro and the Tour as at last SOMEONE is showing some balls!!!

iainf72

girofan wrote:

Aah! Mr Bruyneel. I thought mention of that s**t would come up eventually. It's not that his exclusion would fix anything, but it sends out a message that any more tricksy double talk such as "We have never had a positive test," will no longer pull the wool over the eyes of either the organisors, UCI or the fans. It has taken the big tour organisors to at last try and put a stop to several teams putting two fingers up to the sport.

Whoa, wait a minute - Do you honestly believe the organisers and UCI didn't know what was going on?

Don't delude yourself, they don't care one little bit about the sport being clean, just the show not being ruined by positives or scandals.

And see, the fans aren't interested in cleaning it up, they're interested in getting a scapegoat (Bruyneel, he'll do), burn him and get back to the status quo.

Kléber

I think if you take down Bruyneel, you go someway to cleaning up the sport. Arresting a Belgian soigneur, or rousting an Italian water carrier there won't change much. If you want to stop the mafia, get the capo not the footsoldiers. Not that Bruyneel is the only one of course.

Like others say, I'm very disappointed in the attitude of the UCI. As the governing body, it should show leadership and a plan to take our sport forward. Instead, it seems to view itself as a competitor to ASO and fires off idiotic press releases, even letting its President make blundering quotes in the media.

skavanagh.bikeradar

The UCI have taken their collective eye off the ball and ASO are quietly hoovering up all the important races. As is pointed out above and elsewhere the ProTour is only as good as its events and ASO has most of the important ones.

This is a war the UCI will lose. They need to come up with a new strategy. Perhaps that could be being the governing body of a sport called cycling. Prudhomme must be laughing his head off.

aurelio_-_banned

http://bp2.blogger.com/_BnW_6ivBuqs/Rya ... -h/ja1.jpg

http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=73

http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... -game.html

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

I think if you take down Bruyneel, you go someway to cleaning up the sport. Arresting a Belgian soigneur, or rousting an Italian water carrier there won't change much. If you want to stop the mafia, get the capo not the footsoldiers. Not that Bruyneel is the only one of course.

I maintain the focus on Bruyneel is misguided and driven by a dislike of him (and Armstrong) rather than any desire for actual change. Aside from doping being more public, is it actually any different than it was in 98?

Look at all the Grand Tours last year and the winners - Remind me what has changed since all the scandals? Some new "clean" teams? Been there, done that, it's called the French teams post-Festina.

Until there are tests that work this problem isn't going away.

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

I maintain the focus on Bruyneel is misguided and driven by a dislike of him (and Armstrong) rather than any desire for actual change...

I would dispute that. There are many good reasons for focusing on Armstrong and Bruyneel. For one whilst so many other riders have had to face the music with regards doping or have voluntarily admitted to what goes on (an important step forward in the fight to undermine the doping culture) they have (so far…) managed to uphold the code of the 'omerta' and avoid any penalty. This is despite between them having perpetrated the biggest con in cycling's history; that is the claim that Armstrong won his 7 Tours 'clean'.

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

I would dispute that. There are many good reasons for focusing on Armstrong and Bruyneel. For one whilst so many other riders have had to face the music with regards doping or have voluntarily admitted to what goes on (an important step forward in the fight to undermine the doping culture)

Who are you refering to exactly? A handful have broken the omerta but nothing significant.

And what has changed since that handful did it?

drenkrom

So what exactly will happen if Bruyneel gets nailed? Will it be a great catalyst for change, now that we get the capo and not the footsoldiers? I draw your highly specific attention to a man you'd definitely call a capo. He brought many of his riders to Grand Tour fame. Ladies and gentlemen, Manolo Saiz! Saiz was arrested with a briefcase with money and doping products in it. You can hardly get more damning than that. What great change has transpired after this coup? A few riders bit the dust, but most of Saiz' riders are still in fully-functional omerta mode. Would getting Bruyneel somehow be different? If so, why?

You can hate the man as much as you like, you're never going to be able to do a thing about it until you can catch him with a briefcase full of money and drugs. Do that and I'll be right up there demanding he be banned from cycling. Until then, I'll be over there watching bike races. Novel concept, isn't it? You guys should try sometime.

Titanium

I reckon busting a few big names will help. We have guys at the top of the sport who have risen up there thanks for fraud. You wouldn't trust a politician who won thanks to a rigged ballot, so why are DSs who can't condemn doping so powerful?

Read the interview with Dr Steffen over on cyclingnews, he shows what happens if you speak out. As long as some people at the top of the sport abuse their fraudulently acquired power to shut down their critics, anyone wanting a clean sport has to watch them make more money at the expense of their riders.

Saiz got rousted and his team with the infamous system behind it was shut down. I'd call it a win for anti-doping, what about you? To clean up you need to go after big names, but not in isolation. Right now there are simple solutions out there to fix some things.

Importantly, Steffen said years ago that riders were taking EPO, thickening their blood and then draining it out after a race, as a way to avoid the predictable timing of the UCI "vampires" who always appear at the same time. He warned about blood doping years ago. Think about it, a simple change in the timing of the UCI's testing regime could have rendered this method useless. Just make the vampires turn up at random times, better still take blood samples from the start line.

So we have a way to make blood doping almost useless thanks to a change in the timing of a dope test. Easy, huh? But what have the UCI done, nothing?

iainf72

Titanium wrote:

Saiz got rousted and his team with the infamous system behind it was shut down. I'd call it a win for anti-doping, what about you?

What has it changed? He got busted, Liberty pulled out, Astana took over and it was business as usual, no?

Read Cyclingfansanonymous lately?

Saiz is back, after a fashion....

Titanium

I don't think everything carried on as before. Not that things got better but word from Astana was that riders were doing their own thing rather than the organized ways of Saiz at ONCE/Liberty. Astana wasn't great, riders were surrounded by other old guard guys. So visually no change but one guy down made things a bit better. Or you want him back?

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

I think if you take down Bruyneel, you go someway to cleaning up the sport. Arresting a Belgian soigneur, or rousting an Italian water carrier there won't change much. If you want to stop the mafia, get the capo not the footsoldiers. Not that Bruyneel is the only one of course.

I maintain the focus on Bruyneel is misguided and driven by a dislike of him (and Armstrong) rather than any desire for actual change. Aside from doping being more public, is it actually any different than it was in 98?

Look at all the Grand Tours last year and the winners - Remind me what has changed since all the scandals? Some new "clean" teams? Been there, done that, it's called the French teams post-Festina.

Until there are tests that work this problem isn't going away.

Would you say the same %age of the peloton are blood doping in 2008 than were in 1998?

dave_1

In defence of the pro tour aiming to develop races like the Tour of China...from what I remember of Pat's comments... I would say one thing...it's an absoluite disgrace that the most populous nations and Africa yield none or very few pro tour level riders despite having a massive % of the world's population. I am not so interested in the Tour Down under as the Aussies are doing fine...but China and India need to be the focus of future pro stage racing

Was great to see another unrepresented nation do well yesterday..a korean cyclist

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/fe ... angkawi083

iainf72

DaveyL wrote:

Would you say the same %age of the peloton are blood doping in 2008 than were in 1998?

Oh, it's lower overall.

But at the sharp end (where the winners are) has it actually changed? Do you believe you could win clean, especialy in a grand tour?

skavanagh.bikeradar

Talking for myself, no I don't think I could. In fact I'm sure I couldn't.