UCI / ASO spat : If nothing else

iainf72

It's generating some amusing web stuff

http://bp1.blogger.com/_vxgbWfZN7DQ/R9a ... 008web.jpg

aurelio_-_banned

Sorry, but you will have to explain why you find this 'amusing'. In fact I would even appreciate an explanation of what point it is supposed to be making.

iainf72

Loosen up mate. It's like that Letlevicry website. It's not supposed to be accurate, it's just silly.

andyp

I'm reminded of the E B White quote; "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it."

Doobz

haha yea that letlevicry is class.. that image is a bit scary tho.. still funny..

dave_1

the UCI-ASO spat is annoying and boring to read about..I just wanna watch races happen,

drenkrom

The great thing about ASO races being governed by the FFC is that there are actual races happening you can watch. And if Paris-Nice is any indication, the level of racing is not lacking.

iainf72

drenkrom wrote:

The great thing about ASO races being governed by the FFC is that there are actual races happening you can watch. And if Paris-Nice is any indication, the level of racing is not lacking.

True.

Don't you worry about a conflict of interests?

Worst thing for ASO would be a positive in one of their races. By running the race and anti-doping outside of the general framework, they could "manage" situations.

Titanium

I think there's a clear message going on here. A rider tests positive in an ASO race and unless there is good evidence that the rider was stupid, acting alone (and the team fires him), then the whole team can look forward to the Tour of Austria in July.

Sounds to me like the testing procedures in France are better as they test more and retain hair samples which can help in hormone cases.

iainf72

Titanium wrote:

I think there's a clear message going on here. A rider tests positive in an ASO race and unless there is good evidence that the rider was stupid, acting alone (and the team fires him), then the whole team can look forward to the Tour of Austria in July.

Unless they're, ooooh, say, Rabobank ?

Titanium

My thoughts too Iain. Rabobank management were complicit in Rasmussen's fable of Mexican mystery. But they were able to pin the blame on events outside of the Tour and beat the UCI with the stick of their failure to follow their own rules. I can hear ASO asking McQuaid "why didn't you tell us he missed two tests when your own rules meant he would have been blocked from riding Le Tour".

And let's face it, Rasmussen only has missed tests against him. We can fantasize about his doping but Astana were running industrial blood doping during the Tour and the team management were in denial of this. If the team is clean and the sponsors are honest, then they can wait a year.

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

Unless they're, ooooh, say, Rabobank ?

We aren't privy to any conversations between ASO, Rabobank the corporation and the team management. One imagines that the conversation was pretty much one way and along the lines of "if you sully our reputation again your A team will be lining up at the Tour of Austria so get it sorted".

LangerDan

andyp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Unless they're, ooooh, say, Rabobank ?

We aren't privy to any conversations between ASO, Rabobank the corporation and the team management. One imagines that the conversation was pretty much one way and along the lines of "if you sully our reputation again your A team will be lining up at the Tour of Austria so get it sorted".

"Unless, of course, you'd like to take up one of our new Corporate Event Sponsorship Packages"

aurelio_-_banned

LangerDan wrote:

"Unless, of course, you'd like to take up one of our new Corporate Event Sponsorship Packages"

You mean like the UCI effectively said to teams. "Do you want to ride the top events but are having problems getting a ride, perhaps due to the exposure of institutionalised doping within your team. Don't worry! Buy a 'ProTour' licence from the UCI and we will guarantee you a place in all the top events, regardless of what the organisers want"?

I also see no evidence that the ASO have any intention of adopting on the UCI's policy of, for example, accepting donations to 'help in the fight against doping' from riders who they have helped out of a 'spot of bother' by accepting a post-dated Therapeutic Exemption Certificate. I know it is fashionable to criticise the ASO, after all they are French and so must be in the wrong, right? However, the real ones wearing the horns in all this are McQuaid and Verbruggen's other acolytes in the UCI...

---

If you want to begin to understand the truly mind-boggling degree of corruption and malfeasance within the UCI and the cycling world in general, you would do well to educate yourself on the story of former-BDR president and ex-member of the UCI's Management Committee Sylvia Schenk. Her ethics complaints revealed the corrupt backroom dealing that led to McQuaid becoming head of the UCI, and highlight the illegitimacy of the UCI's often mafia methods. The UCI demands others follow their rules when it suits them, but meanwhile they do not bother to follow their own rules themselves. They respond with vicious and vindictive character assassination to even the most legitimate of ethical complaints, and they are shown time and again to be utterly lacking in moral fiber. Verbruggen is the real root of this evil, and even today he is still working his black arts behind the scenes, where he has been shopping around for investors as he seeks to make himself into the cycling equivalent of Formula One's billionaire CEO Bernie Ecclestone. Meanwhile Schenk is still speaking out, although not many people seem to listen or care. She warned way back in 2005 that "Concerning the ProTour, I think that this reform shouldn't have been pushed through that fast, because the interests of the national federations and other parties involved weren't taken into account at all...By using violence, you don't get people on your side. There's several problems concerning the ProTour, and these have been addressed by the three Grand Tours again and again....France and Belgium for example would like to see more of their races in the calendar but they don't stand any chance of getting them in. The system is too rigid." Nobody listened, did they? And we wonder why cycling is in such a mess due to unchecked doping and incompetent management? The answer is simple: Hein Verbruggen. Until he and every one of his hand-picked cronies are totally removed from the UCI, there will never be any hope for proper governance in cycling.

http://tinyurl.com/3xa6vt

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /aug11news

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/ ... _schenk05b

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=200 ... /jul31news

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

I also see no evidence that the ASO have any intention of adopting on the UCI's policy of, for example, accepting donations to 'help in the fight against doping' from riders who they have helped out of a 'spot of bother' by accepting a post-dated Therapeutic Exemption Certificate.

Aren't you risking putting the ASO on a pedastal here .

They are running a for profit business and will "do the right thing" when the dollar is involved. Look at their sponsor list

[url=ttp://www.letour.fr/2008/TDF/COURSE/fr/partenaires.html]ttp://www.letour.fr/2008/TDF/COURSE/fr/partenaires.html[/url]

Many of those sponsors have interests in teams too, if not being the primary sponsor.

I wonder if there is more to Rabo being there than we know about.

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

Aren't you risking putting the ASO on a pedastal here . They are running a for profit business and will "do the right thing" when the dollar is involved.

Exactly, and about time too! Given that institutionalised doping (which the UCI has turned a blind eye to or even been complicit in over the years) has brought the 'sport' to the brink, it is no surprise that those with a financial interest in the sport are at last acting in a manner which is designed to protect the long-term interests of the cycling and in turn their investment.

Of course the ASO have an eye on the financial implications of the way the sport is going and I have never said that the ASO are doing what they are doing because of some higher moral calling. Nonetheless, what they are doing is, if the UCI don't screw everything up once more, in the long-term interests of the sport. The ASO have also proven themselves to be highly competent (just look at the way the Tour is run) which is a lot more than can be said of the UCI!

iainf72 wrote:

I wonder if there is more to Rabo being there than we know about.

If you are really interested in stories of corruption and conspiracy you would probably find your time would be rather more productively spent looking at the seamier side of the UCI's behaviour over the years!

Kléber

I part agree with Aurelio. ASO might be interested in making money but their product is the Tour de France and they need to save its reputation. Taking short term money today just risks damage to the long term image of the race. One of the things that makes cycling different from other sports is the history of the sport, the prestige of many races relies not on their TV coverage, prize list or sponsors but on their longevity and mythical status. Undermine this goodwill with cheap scandal and you'll need decades to bring it back.

As Aurelio says, the UCI have tried to sweep doping under the carpet several times and it keeps coming back. Simple measures like doing the "vampire" tests on or near the start line would have blown away the problem of blood doping but they weren't bothered. But the UCI has upped its game. It was their "intelligence" that exposed Rasmussen as a one of the "men in black". They need to keep up this work.

All in all it's possible for cycling to have a much brighter future. A condition of this would be the departure of Verbruggen-McQuaid from the UCI. The combination of bad policy and a tendency to open the mouth before thinking only adds to the damaging. I can understand doping - the cost vs benefit of it all, the old culture, the weak testing regimes - but I can't understand why the UCI is fronted by a fool.

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I wonder if there is more to Rabo being there than we know about.

If you are really interested in stories of corruption and conspiracy you would probably find your time would be rather more productively spent looking at the seamier side of the UCI's behaviour over the years!

I disagree. I know the UCI are a bunch of morons. However everyone seems to be happy to bet the farm on ASO - I prefer to have a good hard look at what they're doing now - Is it what it seems? Should we, the fans, trust them?

When I said they'd "do the right thing" I meant they'd look the other way when it would have an adverse impact on their bottom line.

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

When I said they'd "do the right thing" I meant they'd look the other way when it would have an adverse impact on their bottom line.

The problem with your little theory is that the ASO have shown no sign of doing such a thing in relation to all the doping scandals over the last decade or so. In fact they have often been accused of doing the opposite- that is making allegations of doping without absolute proof. What's more the ASO know that the French government takes a close 'interest' in doping, not least because it has become something of a national embarrassment to have the name of France- as in the 'Tour de France' constantly linked to doping. When Willy Voet was busted this was due to undercover work by the French Sports Ministry and the police, and the ASO know that any attempts to 'look the other way' could have serious implications for them.

On the other hand we know that McQuaid and the UCI are still trying to 'look the other way' as much as is possible with regards doping. Witness McQuaid's idiotic comments last year claiming that team level doping was a thing of the past and that riders only went faster than ever before because 'the wind is different'.

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



http://tinyurl.com/3ysyrb

LangerDan

Why are ASO acting now? Industrial - level doping has been prevalent in the peleton for at least 15 years now. Even if we are to regard the Festina affair as being the first public exposition of the scale of the problem, that still means that ASO, along with the other race organisers and the UCI have spent most of the past decade sitting on their hands. The real change in past couple of years is not that the ASO have suddenly realised that riders might be doping - its that the public at large have. With them switching off in droves, the commercial viability of race organisation is seriously compromised. To get the viewers tuning back in, you don't need a clean sport - you need the perception of a clean sport because perception is reality.

aurelio_-_banned

LangerDan wrote:

Why are ASO acting now? Industrial - level doping has been prevalent in the peleton for at least 15 years now. Even if we are to regard the Festina affair as being the first public exposition of the scale of the problem, that still means that ASO, along with the other race organisers and the UCI have spent most of the past decade sitting on their hands...

Not quite so. The ASO tried to take a strong position on doping after the Festina scandal but they were hamstrung by the UCI, a situation which has directly led to the ASO/UCI split. A good illustration of this is the way Jean Marie Leblanc fought to have Richard Virenque excluded from the Tour whilst the UCI insisted that he be given a place. The UCI has gone out of it's way to 'protect the interests' of those riders accused of doping and displayed it's 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' policy towards doping on many other occasions since. In the wake of Armstrong's retrospective positive for Epo use in the 1999 Tour Hein Verbruggen even went to far as to commission a report critical of the LNDD, it appears largely in order to ensure that Armstrong was protected from any action.

LangerDan

aurelio wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Why are ASO acting now? Industrial - level doping has been prevalent in the peleton for at least 15 years now. Even if we are to regard the Festina affair as being the first public exposition of the scale of the problem, that still means that ASO, along with the other race organisers and the UCI have spent most of the past decade sitting on their hands...

A good illustration of this is the way Jean Marie Leblanc fought to have Richard Virenque excluded from the Tour whilst the UCI insisted that he be given a place. .

The reason that Virenque couldn't be excluded is that the ASO did not have sufficiently sound legal grounds. Had the UCI sided with ASO, it would have resulted in all parties spending July before CAS or similar. Virenque would most likely have won and UCI / ASO faced a damages claim.
ASO had sufficient opportunity in the intervening years to amend their own rules to exclude Virenque among others and have now been able to do so.

BTW, Virenques post-ban comeback win was in an ASO event so they musn't have disliked him that much.

aurelio_-_banned

LangerDan wrote:

The reason that Virenque couldn't be excluded is that the ASO did not have sufficiently sound legal grounds. Had the UCI sided with ASO, it would have resulted in all parties spending July before CAS or similar. Virenque would most likely have won and UCI / ASO faced a damages claim.

Really? The situation with Astana today looks much the same as with Virenque back the and the ASO don't seem to bothered about being taken to court for refusing to offer an invite to Astana, just as they weren't too bothered about the same happening for refusing to offer an invite to Virenque. Today the UCI is effectively siding with the dopers, much as they sided with Virenque back then. The UCI surely had no need to side with Virenque at all as it would have been the ASO who would have faced any 'legal' challenge, and yet they chose to. (Not that anyone, at least as far as I know, has a legal right to be invited to take part in a bike race in any case!). The only real difference is that back then the ASO allowed the UCI to dictate to them who should ride their event and today they are refusing to give in to the UCI's bullying and threats!

LangerDan wrote:

BTW, Virenques post-ban comeback win was in an ASO event so they musn't have disliked him that much.

I know, at least the ASO aren't totally unforgiving. Similarly they have said that they might even invite Astana to take part in the Tour next year!

deejay

aurelio wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

When I said they'd "do the right thing" I meant they'd look the other way when it would have an adverse impact on their bottom line.

The problem with your little theory is that the ASO have shown no sign of doing such a thing in relation to all the doping scandals over the last decade or so. In fact they have often been accused of doing the opposite- that is making allegations of doping without absolute proof. What's more the ASO know that the French government takes a close 'interest' in doping, not least because it has become something of a national embarrassment to have the name of France- as in the 'Tour de France' constantly linked to doping. When Willy Voet was busted this was due to undercover work by the French Sports Ministry and the police, and the ASO know that any attempts to 'look the other way' could have serious implications for them.

On the other hand we know that McQuaid and the UCI are still trying to 'look the other way' as much as is possible with regards doping. Witness McQuaid's idiotic comments last year claiming that team level doping was a thing of the past and that riders only went faster than ever before because 'the wind is different'.

I am all the way with AURELIO and his posts come from his/her research and not a flipant view point, like some.

The thread started with a so called joke that escapes me because I don't think this has been mentioned here, that the Tour de France was run under French Federation Rules before any UCI and the so called joke (fun) is more serious that the F.F. do it again.

This race is now part of French Heritage and as such the French Government (including Police) will be involved to move any obstacles that block it's path. The French people put up with it because of the same reasons and if you (who the hell are you & I) think an outside body is going to take it over, then think again.

Put your energies into slagging The Irishman, The Dutchman and re-organise the UCI.

iainf72

deejay wrote:

This race is now part of French Heritage and as such the French Government (including Police) will be involved to move any obstacles that block it's path. The French people put up with it because of the same reasons and if you (who the hell are you & I) think an outside body is going to take it over, then think again.

If someone like say, Menchov or Valverde wins the Tour this year, how will you feel about it? Will you be satisfied with them as winners?

deejay

iainf72 wrote:

deejay wrote:

This race is now part of French Heritage and as such the French Government (including Police) will be involved to move any obstacles that block it's path. The French people put up with it because of the same reasons and if you (who the hell are you & I) think an outside body is going to take it over, then think again.

If someone like say, Menchov or Valverde wins the Tour this year, how will you feel about it? Will you be satisfied with them as winners?

Not my problem but if there is any proof of those riders then the ASO will not "Invite" them.

I hope whoever wins the GT's was sweating and hurting himself and riding the mountains in "Style" but not a wheelsucking bum.!!!

My problem is with the UCI mismanagement and that they do not clamp down on "Druggies" but would appear to allegedly take back handers.

iainf72

deejay wrote:

Not my problem but if there is any proof of those riders then the ASO will not "Invite" them.

My problem is with the UCI mismanagement and that they do not clamp down
on "Druggies" but would appear to allegedly take back handers.

ASO have said they won't invite entire teams rather than single out riders. Hence Contador being welcome if he rode for another team...

What I meant was would their victory be more believable to you if the race was run as a French national event? If not, then what value is being added?

Arkibal

The rumour mill says that 7 PT team managers had dinner with Hein and Pat on friday in Milan... And I'm pretty sure none of those PT teams were French.

There certainly are a lot of things happening behind the scenes..

ASO's decision to leave Astana out was a very bad one, IMO, imagine what kind of signal that sends to the sponsors that so many teams are looking for after this season?
Leaving a defending champ out of the big races doesn't look good, especially without a valid reason. And don't give me the crap of Astanas past, then ASO and RCS would've not invited any team with a dope history last year. Di Luca riding the Giro is the perfect example of the hypocrisy from the organisers.

aurelio_-_banned

Arkibal wrote:

ASO's decision to leave Astana out was a very bad one, IMO, imagine what kind of signal that sends to the sponsors that so many teams are looking for after this season?

Hopefully the message that the ASO will no longer tolerate institutionalised doping!

Arkibal wrote:

Leaving a defending champ out of the big races doesn't look good, especially without a valid reason.

How about Contador's involvement in Operation Puerto? In any case it is Astana who has been excluded and Contador could still, in theory at least, get a ride with another team. The mess he is in is of his own making as he surely knew the reputation of the team he was joining and the likely implications of signing up for them. I get the feeling Bruyneel signed him up purely because he didn't think the ASO would have the balls to refuse a ride to Astana if he was in the team. Thankfully the ASO have shown that they do!

Arkibal wrote:

And don't give me the crap of Astanas past, then ASO and RCS would've not invited any team with a dope history last year.

Seems sensible to be to refuse to invite a team with a history of organised doping on the one hand (as with Astana's blood transfusion service), whilst on the other being more lenient with teams where a single rider acted on his own 'initiative', as with Moreini's testosterone patch.

Arkibal wrote:

Di Luca riding the Giro is the perfect example of the hypocrisy from the organisers.

The Hypocrisy of McQuaid and the UCI far exceeds that of any organiser. For example, McQuaid argued that the organisers of the Tour of California had the full right to decide who rode their event, but denies that the ASO have the same right. He argued that it is wrong for the ASO to fail to invite Astana on the basis of their past record, and then went ahead and banned Frank Vandenbroucke from all 'ProTour' events on exactly the same grounds! He argued that the ASO are 'blackmailing' riders, claims that he has the interests of the riders at heart and said that he will do everything to defend the supposed 'right' of Contador to ride the Tour (regardless of his implication in the Puerto affair), and yet he has also threatened to ban any rider who takes part in the Paris Nice from all races held under UCI rules for 6 months!

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

Arkibal wrote:

ASO's decision to leave Astana out was a very bad one, IMO, imagine what kind of signal that sends to the sponsors that so many teams are looking for after this season?

Hopefully the message that the ASO will no longer tolerate institutionalised doping!

Aurerlio - What would you say the reasoning behind inviting Rabobank to the races would be?

Institutionalised doping rumours : Check.
Caused hugely embarrassing incident during TdF : Check

Rumours around the high profile members of the team using a blood clinic in Austria, high profile rider who's coached by Ceccho etc etc.

Don't you think it's a bit inconsistant?

micron

But no Rabobank rider actually proved those rumours by testing positive during the race did they - and the situation of Rasmussen was different because he wasn't caught doping like Vino was.

I think there are some good arguments but I think the UCI need to be overhauled and the ancien regime should go - as it should on the rider side too.

But I expect that Astana and CSC and Rabobank will enjoy going around the world to Langkawi and California - it is such a shame that the Eindhoven TTT no longer exists...