Clerc "Contador the Star"
Comments
-
le patron wrote:It's professional sport, not a private house party. There should be a fair qualification system, like most other sports events with credibility.
No it shouldn't. ASO is a private company, and the Tour is effectively a private party. ASO aren't a governing body, and don't have to be impartial.0 -
redddraggon wrote:If ASO want you in, you're IN, if they don't like you, you're OUT.
Close.
If ASO want you in, you're in, if ASO don't like you but you sponsor one of their events, you're in. If they don't like you, you're out.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
redddraggon wrote:le patron wrote:It's professional sport, not a private house party. There should be a fair qualification system, like most other sports events with credibility.
No it shouldn't. ASO is a private company, and the Tour is effectively a private party. ASO aren't a governing body, and don't have to be impartial.
And so with no clear or consistent qualification requirements, it becomes an exhibition event. The winner is the the best of those invited, not the best rider or team. One of the stops down this path is pro-celebrity golf.
It's a bit like creating a spin-off FA Cup with only your favourite teams in it. It might make lots of money, and might have most of the best players represented, but the winners can't necessarily feel they are there on merit. Which is sad.
Incidently - would most people like to see Contador riding this year ? I think I would. I'd like to see Evans v Contador.0 -
andyp wrote:
Are you quite sure on your first point? I'd contend Vinokourov, Kashechin, Kessler and Mazzoleni all provided positive tests in 2007.Dave_1 wrote:Astana has no positives from 2007, nor does Bruyneel as a DS...this is about getting back at Armstrong and for sigining Basso...so ASO are using one of the few opportunities to give them a poke in eye....the French are a jealous group at times...7 TDF wins hurts, none since Hinault
the current team is no more connected to said dopers than are Credit Agricole or any other team for that matter. Astana is a name on a jersey only 0 -
-
This is only for one year. If Bruyneel can clean up the backroom staff, implement the Damsgard anti-doping screening and make sure the old Astana riders behave themselves, then great, they'll be back next year and the spat will be forgotten.0
-
le patron wrote:And so with no clear or consistent qualification requirements, it becomes an exhibition event. The winner is the the best of those invited, not the best rider or team. One of the stops down this path is pro-celebrity golf..
It's not too far from the Masters - they can invite who they like. If for some reason they took a dislike to Tiger Woods, they could decide not to invite him!Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Kléber wrote:This is only for one year. If Bruyneel can clean up the backroom staff, implement the Damsgard anti-doping screening and make sure the old Astana riders behave themselves, then great, they'll be back next year and the spat will be forgotten.
there are no backroom staff from 07 are there? It's Disco that are in every single position backroom i think0 -
It's the same sponsor though. Who clearly were prepared to cheat last year in the name of make glorious benefit for the Kazakh nation. What's changed there?Dave_1 wrote: the current team is no more connected to said dopers than are Credit Agricole or any other team for that matter. Astana is a name on a jersey only0 -
DaveyL wrote:le patron wrote:And so with no clear or consistent qualification requirements, it becomes an exhibition event. The winner is the the best of those invited, not the best rider or team. One of the stops down this path is pro-celebrity golf..
It's not too far from the Masters - they can invite who they like. If for some reason they took a dislike to Tiger Woods, they could decide not to invite him!
The Masters invites all past winners automatically, so Tiger could follow in the footsteps of doddery old geezers like Arnold Palmer and play until he's 102.
If you ask me, that's an idea the Tour needs to be looking at. Who wouldn't like to see Merckx, Bahamontes and Hinault back mixing it with the current crop of young whippersnappers?!0 -
andyp wrote:
It's the same sponsor though. Who clearly were prepared to cheat last year in the name of make glorious benefit for the Kazakh nation. What's changed there?Dave_1 wrote: the current team is no more connected to said dopers than are Credit Agricole or any other team for that matter. Astana is a name on a jersey only
Surely you could apply that logic to CSC?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
afx237vi wrote:DaveyL wrote:le patron wrote:And so with no clear or consistent qualification requirements, it becomes an exhibition event. The winner is the the best of those invited, not the best rider or team. One of the stops down this path is pro-celebrity golf..
It's not too far from the Masters - they can invite who they like. If for some reason they took a dislike to Tiger Woods, they could decide not to invite him!
The Masters invites all past winners automatically, so Tiger could follow in the footsteps of doddery old geezers like Arnold Palmer and play until he's 102.
If you ask me, that's an idea the Tour needs to be looking at. Who wouldn't like to see Merckx, Bahamontes and Hinault back mixing it with the current crop of young whippersnappers?!
That's a good idea. But it is by invitation - they theoretically *could* decide not to invite someone if they so chose. Players would have no recourse to the USGA or USPGA if they weren't invited - the Masters do their own thing.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
You could. But we know that CSC are using Damsgaard to monitor them so if they are cheating they're being very clever. Astana made grandoise claims about using Damsgaard in the off season but has anyone actually seen any evidence that they are?iainf72 wrote:Surely you could apply that logic to CSC?0 -
andyp wrote:
It's the same sponsor though. Who clearly were prepared to cheat last year in the name of make glorious benefit for the Kazakh nation. What's changed there?Dave_1 wrote: the current team is no more connected to said dopers than are Credit Agricole or any other team for that matter. Astana is a name on a jersey only
Would the execs at boardroom sanction doping or do what Millar alleged at cofidis.."head in the sand".
I see your point though, it could be that sinister perhaps..0 -
I'd look at it another way - would the execs hand over a budget of €10 million for a sponsorship package and not ask how the money would be spent? I think they would and personally I'd want to know why the 'Medical Support' budget was so high.Dave_1 wrote:Would the execs at boardroom sanction doping or do what Millar alleged at cofidis.."head in the sand".
I see your point though, it could be that sinister perhaps..0 -
Worse, the Kazakh officials spent part of July attacking ASO, WADA and the UCI. They refused to condemn Vinokourov.
Imagine inviting some friends to a summer BBQ at your house and they bring their teenage kid. He gets drunk and trashes your home. When you approach the parents say you're angry with their son's behaviour, they blame you and lash out at the educational system instead of saying sorry. Do you invite them back next summer? Maybe you just ask some boring colleagues to come along and make up the numbers, at least they won't cause you so much strife.0 -
But they will turn up in natty Argyle outfits looking like a bunch of Dandies. Except for the tall skinny one in a red, white and blue combo...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
andyp wrote:
I'd look at it another way - would the execs hand over a budget of €10 million for a sponsorship package and not ask how the money would be spent? I think they would and personally I'd want to know why the 'Medical Support' budget was so high.Dave_1 wrote:Would the execs at boardroom sanction doping or do what Millar alleged at cofidis.."head in the sand".
I see your point though, it could be that sinister perhaps..
Passive involvement like Millar claimed, or active? I interpret what you say as the possibility they don't ask too many questions on purpose0
