Tour de France: Astana banned

iainf72

The riders from other teams don't sound impressed

http://www.velonews.com/article/72054

vermooten

I compare Astana's exclusion to Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas getting whacked. The explanation in the film for that incident was for a specific act - the killing of a made man - but, significantly, it is supplemented by the expression "... and a whole lotta other stuff..."

Like Pesci's character, the Astana team is just plain dodgy and needed to be whacked. It's a shame Bertie and Levi are involved, since it leaves the door open for the least inspring rider in cycling's long history, Evans, to win the Tour.

iainf72

Moomaloid wrote:

So what happens if all the dodgy riders with suspect rep leave astana join another team and end up in the tour?? Has ASO actually proved anything there? We lose Astana as a sponsor which in turn detracts other sponsors entering the sport, and Contador the chief whiffy one would still be riding. Don't see the benefit there.

ASO have said Bertie could join another team and take part in the Tour. Bertie said he won't do that.

Can everyone just accept that this isn't a grand anti-doping statement?

top_bhoy

iainf72 wrote:

The riders from other teams don't sound impressed

http://www.velonews.com/article/72054

And how many more of the ones we don't hear about who are in support of it. The riders in favour will be scared to say too much else for fear of being shunned. Is that not what you often promote - those who speak out get punished? Can't have it both ways. (ooh errr.... )

top_bhoy

iainf72 wrote:

Moomaloid wrote:

So what happens if all the dodgy riders with suspect rep leave astana join another team and end up in the tour?? Has ASO actually proved anything there? We lose Astana as a sponsor which in turn detracts other sponsors entering the sport, and Contador the chief whiffy one would still be riding. Don't see the benefit there.

ASO have said Bertie could join another team and take part in the Tour. Bertie said he won't do that.

Can everyone just accept that this isn't a grand anti-doping statement?

If it isn't a grand anti-doping statement what is it - punishment for blatant team doping regime?

I hear a lot about banning riders after doping fails - and rightly so. Now a team which has been so disgraced has taken a bit of a hit, it seems as though many think it unfair. Maybe the ASO banning is unfair in that any sanctions should be from the UCI itself but given their history, it can't be said that this type of action wasn't on the cards.

If Astana and their ilk leave the sport then so be it. That type of ownership/sponsorship will only bring greater problems in the longer term. The sport shouldn't look to cheats and criminals to support it.

drenkrom

Top_Bhoy wrote:

If Astana and their ilk leave the sport then so be it.

By "Astana and their ilk", you're talking about sponsors. Sponsors, as in "the only reason we get to watch races and b!tch like 10-year-old girls on a forum about stuff we don't know". Astana did not dope. Alexandre Vinokourov, Andrei Kasheshkin and Matthias Kessler doped. A sponsor does not dope and a rider does not ring up the sponsor's rep before he shoots up. This decision is not "to send a message", it is "to cover ASO's ass". If that justifies crippling what could've been a superb race to you, life must be pretty boring.

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Can everyone just accept that this isn't a grand anti-doping statement?

If it isn't a grand anti-doping statement what is it - punishment for blatant team doping regime?
[/quote]

I don't know what it is - It strikes me they don't know what to do so they're doing something, anything just to look tough. Look at Prudhommes statement about Rabobank - How utterly pathetic - Does he actually read or pay attention to the press? It wasn't just Rasmussen and De Rooy mate. But then, Rabobank are a big sponsor so lets not bother too much.

If the riders from Astana could go to other teams and get a ride in the Tour then they're penalising the name only - Which maybe accounts for why High Horse are still there. That makes the Tour like some clubs in London - Won't get in if they don't like the look of you :P

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

And how many more of the ones we don't hear about who are in support of it. The riders in favour will be scared to say too much else for fear of being shunned. Is that not what you often promote - those who speak out get punished? Can't have it both ways. (ooh errr.... )

True. I don't promote it, I just mention the reality of their daily lives.

If I was a rider I wouldn't lile it. Even if the team were run by Dracula himself - If they had Damsgaard and the best GT riders, I'd expect them to be at the races.

secretsqirrel

iainf72 wrote:

If the riders from Astana could go to other teams and get a ride in the Tour then they're penalising the name only - Which maybe accounts for why High Horse are still there. That makes the Tour like some clubs in London - Won't get in if they don't like the look of you :P

This strikes a chord with me. Talk about getting back at Bruyneel just doesn't make sense, as it is unthinkable that if Discovery were still around this year that they would have been excluded from the TDF. It is an direct action against the Astana name. What if we were to suspend 'commonsense' for just one minute and recall the rant of that mad old Kazakh Vinokourov, where he asserts that the European establishment would not shake hands with him, and he felt that the Kazakh's were not welcome on the scene. If there were to be grain of truth in this I think that Astana will never be able to do enough to be accepted by the ASO and the sponsors will eventually have to walk away.
What a complete and utter waste.

LangerDan

BTW, this wouldn't be the same ASO that some people here believed to be the saviours of professional racing and who should be allowed run the whole circus rather than the UCI?

G man

It seems a bit of a coincidence that just after they ban Astana from TDF, the Puerto investigation is reopened. Is this damage limitation before more embarrassing revelations?
G man
A Bradley Wiggins fan

top_bhoy

drenkrom wrote:

If that justifies crippling what could've been a superb race to you, life must be pretty boring.

Haha.....the irony!!!

.....and heres the need for you to become personal towards me. Maybe thats how you generate your interest in life!! :twisted:

top_bhoy

iainf72 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

And how many more of the ones we don't hear about who are in support of it. The riders in favour will be scared to say too much else for fear of being shunned. Is that not what you often promote - those who speak out get punished? Can't have it both ways. (ooh errr.... )

True. I don't promote it, I just mention the reality of their daily lives.

If I was a rider I wouldn't lile it. Even if the team were run by Dracula himself - If they had Damsgaard and the best GT riders, I'd expect them to be at the races.

My point was simply that in these type of polls and articles, you never get a true picture of the riders views and can't really be taken as a general view of the peleton.

alanmcn1

Are there alot of naive people out there? ASO knew that OP was about to be reopened, which gives you a choice. We have seen first hand the snails pace of the spanish judicial sytem, so Preuddhomme has the dilemma of including the reigning champ in his race and probably see an OP press release just as the race starts. Whether we all like it or not, TdF is the public face of cycling, and another hit like that would be just too much.

Alot of people are saying it's driving sponsors away..............B******t! If I am a sponsor I look at this as a positive step, leading to situation hopefully where I know that i can invest in a team, insist on clean values, and have a chance of taking away the silverware and have my team compete in a level playing field. This is as much a hit at dodgy old DSs as well as much as anything. Sponsors don't encourage riders to dope and win at all costs, it's DSs giving out 1-2 year contracts with renewal dependant on results..................step forward Johan.

all IMHO ofcourse

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

My point was simply that in these type of polls and articles, you never get a true picture of the riders views and can't really be taken as a general view of the peleton.

Indeed. But we can't really rely in the CPA either - I wonder if they'll say something about this. They did in the Giro case but then half the representatives ride for High Horse.

My feeling would be the riders disagree with this.

iainf72

alanmcn1 wrote:

Are there alot of naive people out there? ASO knew that OP was about to be reopened, which gives you a choice. We have seen first hand the snails pace of the spanish judicial sytem, so Preuddhomme has the dilemma of including the reigning champ in his race and probably see an OP press release just as the race starts. Whether we all like it or not, TdF is the public face of cycling, and another hit like that would be just too much.

Can you explain why Valverde's team is still there then? No? Didn't think so. There is significantly more evidence of him being involved than Contador.

alanmcn1

Valverde would not be as big a hit to the tour organisation though would it, and they were keen not to include him races last year. As I also said in an earleir post, american cycling journos are predicting Lance and Johan are about to take a severe pounding on doping their way to 7 tours this year, which again is probably common knowledge in ASO offices. Why is there a reluctance to see this is a positive step. What would be the outcome of yet another dubious or tainted tour winner???????? Nothing about Astana leaves a pleasant taste. Rest assured anyway that Valverde and Contador will not be around for the next few years. If Ettore Torri doesn't get them the re-opened case will, and a ceratin Dick Pound is now head of CAS, so forget an appeal.

Kléber

drenkrom wrote:

Astana did not dope. Alexandre Vinokourov, Andrei Kasheshkin and Matthias Kessler doped. A sponsor does not dope and a rider does not ring up the sponsor's rep before he shoots up.

I disagree. Bruyneel was in talks with a sponsor to replace Discovery who wanted him to "guarantee" wins in the Tour de France. Sponsors put enormous pressure on the team for results and we've seen examples where they turn a blind eye. Festina said they sold more watches, for example. Don't forget also that riders are usually not paid directly by the sponsor but they are part of a team, eg an employee of "arsefart sports". These employers have been exposed again and again as running organised, institutional doping programs.

Specific to Astana, when Vinokourov tested positive, the Kazakh authorities were in denial. Far from apologising for the embarrassment caused to the Tour de France (eg German TV walking out, mid-race), they supported Vino's "swollen leg" nonsense. The sponsor was literally sticking two fingers up at ASO. They then compounded this by hiring the DS, who despite having Leipheimer, Danielson and Contador on his books, had to sign the disgraced Ivan Basso. After bungling their Tour, they out to have recruited some DS who would woo ASO, like Slipstream have been doing. No wonder ASO doesn't think Astana management have the sport's credibility at stake, the Kazakh team demonstrates a very strong "win at all costs" mentality.

iainf72

alanmcn1 wrote:

Valverde would not be as big a hit to the tour organisation though would it, and they were keen not to include him races last year. As I also said in an earleir post, american cycling journos are predicting Lance and Johan are about to take a severe pounding on doping their way to 7 tours this year, which again is probably common knowledge in ASO offices. Why is there a reluctance to see this is a positive step. What would be the outcome of yet another dubious or tainted tour winner???????? Nothing about Astana leaves a pleasant taste. Rest assured anyway that Valverde and Contador will not be around for the next few years. If Ettore Torri doesn't get them the re-opened case will, and a ceratin Dick Pound is now head of CAS, so forget an appeal.

Because it's not a positive step. It's a bit of a random "do something" step. If ASO have such a problem with Contador why was it mentioned he could compete if he rode for another team?

From what we've all seen so far, there is very little to link Contador to Puerto aside from him riding for LS.

skavanagh.bikeradar

This forum is by its nature a bit one eyed. A bit like an internet forum for an extreme cult probably looks and sounds. The bottom line for me is that Astana made serious mistakes last year, didn't react quickly enough or with enough sincerity and attempted to make a mockery of the Tour. ASO are in a position now to be able to extract revenge for that.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that ASO (being insiders in the sport) know the personalities involved and are prepared to extend liberties to some that they are not to others based on what they know of people. Perhaps they see better relationships and lower ongoing risk to their business in High Road and Stapleton than they do in Bruyneel, and a bunch of annonymous Kazakh's.

I'm taking the long view on this and will judge ASO on the standing in which the Tour finds itself in 5 - 10 years time. One thing is certain if the riders and the DS's don't start cleaning up their act and taking their responsibilities to the organisers, the sponsors, the media and the fans seriously again sometime soon there won't be much of a sport left to cheat at. It can clean itself up from the inside protecting jobs and keeping sponsors and media contracts into the bargain.

Kloden, Contador and Leipheimer all chose to stay or move to Astana knowing the risks - they've paid for that and it's too late to moan about it.

top_bhoy

Not forgetting the influence of the French Govt. who I think have a huge influence in all of this given that their participation is more or less essential to all pro cycling in France. I think if the cycling organisations cannot show that they are on top of the problem of doping, then the French politicians, right or wrong, will simply step in with their 'solution'.

CarlosFerreiro

While broadly supporting the idea that a team should not just walk back into 2008 after causing such problems in 2007.....I see that this is "not about the rider"... the team riders could ride if they went to another team.....

ok, so no fingers pointed at the riders.... who else could also move to a new team.... the DS? The other staff? the sponsors? Is a name change all the ASO are looking for? I don't think so.

By keeping on stating who this is not about, are the ASO not moving pretty close to naming specific people who it IS about? Who presumably they do not have any evidence to take specific action against?

aurelio_-_banned

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that ASO (being insiders in the sport) know the personalities involved and are prepared to extend liberties to some that they are not to others based on what they know of people.

Of course the ASO have much more 'inside information' than the public has open access to! For a good example look at the way Basso, Ullrich and co were excluded from the Tour when the organisers acted on the documents provided to them from the Puerto investigation. This exclusion of Astana is just the next logical step the organisers have been forced to take in order to protect the future of the Tour and pro bike racing in general, especially given the ongoing failure of the UCI to address the issue of doping. McQuaid's recent comment on Astana tells us all we need to know about the UCI's 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' attitude to doping!

"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

skavanagh.bikeradar

I was being sarcastic suggesting that ASO might know more than this forum.

McQuaid is a 100%, Class A, dick. But I suspect if you knock him off you will get another mini-Verbruggen pop up in his place.

redddraggon

In the end it's ASO's race, they can invite who they want now, and they've just proved it.

LangerDan

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

ASO are in a position now to be able to extract revenge for that.

Got it in one. Not balance, not justice. Just revenge, in all its commercial goodness. All well and good except that its being dished out by an event which itself has had a long history of bizzare decisions and a fairly ambivalent attitude to doping.

Kléber

LangerDan wrote:

Not balance, not justice. Just revenge, in all its commercial goodness. All well and good except that its being dished out by an event which itself has had a long history of bizzare decisions and a fairly ambivalent attitude to doping.

Why the ambivalent attitude to doping, to what to you attribute this?

Also, ASO is in business. They're worried about losing sponsors and TV coverage evaporating. No wonder they are risk-averse.

secretsqirrel

aurelio wrote:

Of course the ASO have much more 'inside information' than the public has open access to! For a good example look at the way Basso, Ullrich and co were excluded from the Tour when the organisers acted on the documents provided to them from the Puerto investigation.

Basso and Ullrich were suspended by their own teams on the eve of the tour, I don't recall any ASO action at the point?

skavanagh.bikeradar

Quite my 'revenge' quoted above was in relation to Astana causing ASO PR, media and sponsorhip issues due to doping scandals at the tour. They are now able to invite who they like and it doesn't include last years thorn in the side.

girofan

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

McQuaid is a 100%, Class A, dick. But I suspect if you knock him off you will get another mini-Verbruggen pop up in his place.

ASO are doing what the UCI should have done months ago! If the UCI and McQuaid in particular carry on sticking their heads up their ar*e, they will become the non-enteties of cycle sport.