Lets hope the boy have been stocking up the red...

iainf72

Ahhhh, genius

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Tou ... 57747.html

According to L'Equipe, the most serious consequence of the continuing UCI-Tour de France rift is that information from the UCI-run biological passport cannot be used during the Tour. The passport had been hailed as the latest big anti-doping weapon.

secretsqirrel

So we need not expect any 'embarrassments' this year then?

Chapeau ASO! Vindicated,watertight, PR extraordinnaire, and I'm a believer Halleluja!

Ms Gripper, take a vacation in July, you deserve it!

iainf72

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 97913.html

and

http://www.cycling.tv/extras/features/t ... or-08-tour

Does this mean that

a) No one will be able to ride
b) Only riders from countries with longitudinal testing will be admitted
c) They'll pretend they never said it

micron

Because of course it was ASO threatening to sue Dick Pound that caused WADA to pull out of the development of the bio passport, wasn't it. Oh, sorry, that was the UCI wasn't it?

And why dig out an article from October 2007 to try and make a point against ASO? At that point the Bio Passports were still in development. The childish actions of the UCI put paid to it. How then can ASO be expected to use it?

Perhaps you should hold the UCI up to the same exacting standards that you expect of ASO. If the UCI were as concerned about protecting the sport as we might expect a governing body to be, then perhaps there would still be a passport scheme to use and perhaps there would be credible testing at races.

For the sake of balance, and to give the other side of the story: http://www.tsn.ca/other_sports/story/?id=233017

Arkibal

micron wrote:

Because of course it was ASO threatening to sue Dick Pound that caused WADA to pull out of the development of the bio passport, wasn't it. Oh, sorry, that was the UCI wasn't it?

And why dig out an article from October 2007 to try and make a point against ASO? At that point the Bio Passports were still in development. The childish actions of the UCI put paid to it. How then can ASO be expected to use it?

Perhaps you should hold the UCI up to the same exacting standards that you expect of ASO. If the UCI were as concerned about protecting the sport as we might expect a governing body to be, then perhaps there would still be a passport scheme to use and perhaps there would be credible testing at races.

For the sake of balance, and to give the other side of the story: http://www.tsn.ca/other_sports/story/?id=233017

So you are saying that ASO is concerned about protecting the sport??? LOL!!!

LangerDan

Why haven't ASO tried to get into bed with WADA? Both parties are in a serious snit with UCI. WADA have a blood passport programme that doesn't have sport and ASO would benefit from a globally-proposed passport scheme that wouldn't lead itself to allegations of bias by the FFC.

drenkrom

micron, you just walked right past iain's point there, I think. ASO were saying at the route presentation (hence the October 2007 article) that the passport would be an obligation to get in. Along the way, the UCI p!ssed off WADA, or course, but ASO completely ditched the UCI. Even if the UCI had handled everything perfectly and the passport program was in full blow, running without a hitch, ASO would still not use it, completely contradicting what they've been saying for months.

My guess is c).

micron

And instead of their partnership with the UCI, ASO developed a partnership and protocol for testing directly with WADA for P-N.

Walked past iain's point - I don't think so. It was simply yet another cheap jibe at ASO because they won't let Astana ride their race and everybody thinks this is so unfair. Iain was deliberately producing old articles - featuring quotes from Contador, no less - to try and make out that ASO couldn't possibly be going to use the Passport. By point, which you have all conveniently ignored, is that the UCI fouled up the Passport, not the ASO.

But it is so much easier to go frog bashing again - ho hum. It might be more valuable to look at exactly why ASO would prefer to collaborate directly with WADA than with the UCI. But that might demand a little independent thought, mightn't it?

iainf72

For god sakes Micron - I am not anti-ASO or pro-UCI. Or pro Astana. Move past it.

The UCI are still doing a passport - Not sanctioned by WADA so not worth too much but the data is there. However now it's not available to ASO. Why are the FFC running the ASO events - Well, mainly because the UCI expected the ProTour teams to all line up for the Tour de France. Apparantly that's what was agreed in Treviso - I assume a representative from the FFC was there when the calender was decided. Although ASO should have been represented as they own the race.

All the parties are at fault here. ASO jumped on the passport scheme because it might bring some credibility to their event. The UCI did the same. WADA jumped on it because they wanted it out there but rather stupidly didn't insist on the funding being in place before it all kicked off.

But please move past this thinking I hate the French and love Astana. I like a couple of the riders on that team - However, ASO are perfectly within their rights to exclude them from their race. I am just of the opinion that it's marketing and very little else. And that's fine because they're a commercial company looking to return a profit. But people need to stop fooling themselves.

iainf72

Isn't this what they did at the Worlds last year? And Tour of Germany?

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap ... &type=lgns

micron

But let me pose a question - however a change is motivated, if the end result is for good does it matter? Armstrong cheated his way to 7 TdF victories but he used his high profile to set up a cancer charity - does that mitigate the cheating?

ASO are a company - of course they are commercially motivated - but they have also developed the sport as the organisation behind the Tour of Qatar and the Tour de Fasso. I might suggest that those races and the philosphy behind them show something other than commercial self interest but we'll let that pass. What underscores this entire conflict is the UCI's own commercial ambitions - the fact taht they sold ProTour licences without being able to guarantee selection to all races, the fact that Verbruggen has been aworking covertly on a plan to seize the transmission rights for the PT races and sell them for a very large profit.

I agree that ASO's actions now place them outside the Passport scheme when perhaps they could have applied pressure and been principal actors in making that scheme a reality, not the half baked enterprise it seems to be at the moment. But the UCI scheme no longer has the backing of WADA either - and one could argue that the UCI's decision to take legal action against Dick Pound was designed to have that very effect.

Equipe have an interesting article online about the current situation re: the Tour - I would suggest reading it in the original French before translation and spin inevitably muddies exactly what was said:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... e_Dev.html

A couple of points:
ASO are asking for rider's whereabouts so they can conduct targeted controls before the race with the help of national federations
There will be blood, urine and hair tests
There will be multilingual personnel in place
French riders testing positive will be sanctioned by the FFC
Above all they want to avoid the situation they were put in by the UCI last year over Rasmussen and are asking that the names of all targeted riders are communicated before the race

ASO may be making complete fools of themselves and they may have to beg the UCI to let them back in next year. They control some of the biggest races in the calendar but their experiment may not work. However, is what ASO are doing any worse than the mess the UCI have created in the sport for years. I repeat, whatever the motivation, is it not better that someone takes the lead in providing better testing?

Iain, my argument is simply this - that if you intend to hold ASO up to such scrutiny, then you must do the same with the UCI and its decisions. There is fault on both sides but only one seems to be subjected to the microscope. Thank you for your last reply, you made some valid points I think.

iainf72

micron wrote:

Iain, my argument is simply this - that if you intend to hold ASO up to such scrutiny, then you must do the same with the UCI and its decisions. There is fault on both sides but only one seems to be subjected to the microscope. Thank you for your last reply, you made some valid points I think.

Don't worry, I take the UCI to task a fair bit. I knew the passport scheme would fail with the UCI running it. I didn't think they'd have the master stroke of suing Dick Pound though :P

The UCI are the most incompetent of the lot. And I'm convinced they know which TdF challengers are up to dodginess and will make sure something emerges in July. And it's easy to make it look legitimate - A failed OOC test in June or something like that - But all the public will see is "CYCLIST POSITIVE DURING TDF"

iainf72

As a matter of fact.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12553368

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12554626

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12558463

Kléber

These are arcane changes and petty fighting between the UCI and ASO. Go back and read the comments on here before Paris-Nice and people were wondering about the race, what the rules would be and more. In the end, t was the same as ever, some great racing and a few question marks. So for all the dramatic press releases from the UCI, July should offer some excellent racing and maybe a scandal or two.

Frankly, I've given the UCI so many second chances. I fully support the efforts of Gripper and others but the influence of Verbruggen and the incompetence of McQuaid just force me to cheer for ASO at times!

Chucky212

Kléber wrote:

July should offer some excellent racing and maybe a scandal or two.!

dinner without wine is like a Tour without scandal... or something like that. Scandal is and always will be at The Tour. Bring it on.

OllyBianchi

micron wrote:

Verbruggen has been aworking covertly on a plan to seize the transmission rights for the PT races and sell them for a very large profit.

Verbruggen may have done some things wrong but he was onto the right idea here - sports where the governing body owns the tv rights are powerful and rich (football, motor racing, all US sports) - sports where the governing bodies don't control the right are poor and marginalised (boxing, athelitcs).

Bernie Ecclestone's fortune rests on the control of the tv rights, not on the sport itself - anyone can run a Formula 1 race but without the tv rights there's no point.

Imagine a future for cycling where one body was able to sell the tv rights to the whole of the season to broadcasters - the UCI would have the strength to dictate the types of package, and it would be able to use that power to leverage coverage of Women's World Cup, MTB, BMX, Track etc in much the same way as FIFA leverages the coverage of the Womens and under - 17 and under - 21 football.

Verbruggen made many mistakes but he was on the right track with tv rights.

calvjones

Arkibal wrote:

micron wrote:

Because of course it was ASO threatening to sue Dick Pound that caused WADA to pull out of the development of the bio passport, wasn't it. Oh, sorry, that was the UCI wasn't it?

And why dig out an article from October 2007 to try and make a point against ASO? At that point the Bio Passports were still in development. The childish actions of the UCI put paid to it. How then can ASO be expected to use it?

Perhaps you should hold the UCI up to the same exacting standards that you expect of ASO. If the UCI were as concerned about protecting the sport as we might expect a governing body to be, then perhaps there would still be a passport scheme to use and perhaps there would be credible testing at races.

For the sake of balance, and to give the other side of the story: http://www.tsn.ca/other_sports/story/?id=233017

So you are saying that ASO is concerned about protecting the sport??? LOL!!!

So you say that ASO are prepared to kill its golden goose, the TdF, and the the sport its supported through decades even when leaving cycling completely alone would seem the best commercial option? LOL! :shock:

Kléber

OllyBianchi wrote:

Verbruggen made many mistakes but he was on the right track with tv rights.

But there's no point in having TV rights, a Pro Tour and all the rest if the sport is rotten to the core. You need an attractive product.

As we saw last summer, broadcasters in Germany and beyond were dropping coverage of the Tour de France because of all the scandals, because viewers don't know if they're watching a sports contest or a pharmaceutical experiment. If broadcasters are willing to drop the Tour, do you think they'll pay a premium for a package to screen Milan - Turin, the Tour of Poland or the Hamburg Classic?

andyp

OllyBianchi wrote:

Verbruggen made many mistakes but he was on the right track with tv rights.

The only drawback in his grand masterplan was that the UCI didn't actually own the TV rights to anything other than the World Championships. His approach was to try and bully the owners of the TV rights into joining him and the repercussions of that are still being felt today.

OllyBianchi

andyp wrote:

OllyBianchi wrote:

Verbruggen made many mistakes but he was on the right track with tv rights.

The only drawback in his grand masterplan was that the UCI didn't actually own the TV rights to anything other than the World Championships. His approach was to try and bully the owners of the TV rights into joining him and the repercussions of that are still being felt today.

Innit - It took Bernie about 25 years to get hold of all the rights - Hein was never going to bully them out of the ASO in 3 years.

And as Kleber correctly says cycling isn't a terribly attractive product at the moment - but then neither is wrestling which keeps losing major stars to drug and death - and which has the additional problem of having to re-write the storyline every time but it still finds plenty of viewers.

iainf72

But what sports are attractive? You could argue that cyclings problem is that its in the open. The Olympics draw huge interest but what percentage of the athletes are on some kind of gear? 80%?

Football might put pay to out of competition testing.

Tennis has players with enormous drug habits but they "manage" the situation well (not sure if smack is on a banned list though)

There is unsavoury-ness in all sports but with big budgets and some clever spin those problems disappear.