McQuaid may have won after all!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /oct02news
McQuaid went over the head of ASO, and not only got a deal done but now apparently got them fired too. :shock:
Patrice Clerc, the patron of the Tour de France for the past eight years, has been replaced as president of the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the Amaury Group announced Wednesday. Jean-Etienne Amaury, the son of the media giant's founder Philippe Amaury, is taking over presidential duties from Clerc.
Gilbert Ysern, the Director General of the ASO, will also leave the organisation to be replaced by Yann Le Moenner, who has been in charge of marketing, media and legal affairs for the ASO since 1992.
McQuaid went over the head of ASO, and not only got a deal done but now apparently got them fired too. :shock:
0
Comments
-
This could be very bad for the future of cycling, given that under Clerc the ASO, along with the FFC , WADA and so on, really seemed to be tackling the issue of doping in an effective manner. It seems that the sports may now be destined to return to the bad old days when the UCI not only frequently adopted a `See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil` attitude to doping, it also collaborated with dopers in order to avoid `scandal` as it did with Laurent Brochard and Armstrong when they failed dope tests.
0 -
Any chance its all just a coincidence? no, i didnt think so. My guess is that the bosses didnt like the constant bickering between the two and the damage it was doing to the ASO brand. Not going to stop them trying to get the best deal for themselves but it may just cool things off a bit. All we need now is for McQuaid to quit and maybe the egos wont be such an issue. Whoops there goes that wishfull thinking againTake care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
aurelio wrote:This could be very bad for the future of cycling, given that under Clerc the ASO, along with the FFC , WADA and so on, really seemed to be tackling the issue of doping in an effective manner. It seems that the sports may now be destined to return to the bad old days when the UCI not only frequently adopted a `See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil` attitude to doping, it also collaborated with dopers in order to avoid `scandal` as it did with Laurent Brochard and Armstrong when they failed dope tests.
You mean the agreement that was initially mediated by French Minister for Sport Bernard Laporte and which, by mere coincidence, comes at the same time as an end to the FFC/UCI dispute?0 -
So close.............you nearly got through a whole post without mentioning the A-wordaurelio wrote:This could be very bad for the future of cycling, given that under Clerc the ASO, along with the FFC , WADA and so on, really seemed to be tackling the issue of doping in an effective manner. It seems that the sports may now be destined to return to the bad old days when the UCI not only frequently adopted a `See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil` attitude to doping, it also collaborated with dopers in order to avoid `scandal` as it did with Laurent Brochard and Armstrong when they failed dope tests.
0 -
I thought Clerc got the push some time ago over the debacle that has been Paris-Dakkar for the last few years?0
-
micron wrote:I thought Clerc got the push some time ago over the debacle that has been Paris-Dakkar for the last few years?
Quite - mishandle the Tour and you annoy a few bike manufacturers, heating manufacturers and agricultural suppliers, mishandle Dakar and you annoy VW, Mitsubishi, BMW, KTM, Repsol, Red Bull and plenty of governments, with much more serious consequences.0 -
I hardly think that the problems with the Dakar rally can be put down to `mishandling` by Clerc. Weren`t terrorist threats the real problem? Anyhow, McQuaid is certainly giving the impression he had a hand in Clerc`s dismissal.OllyBianchi wrote:mishandle Dakar and you annoy VW, Mitsubishi, BMW, KTM, Repsol, Red Bull and plenty of governments, with much more serious consequences.
"It's something I shouldn't comment on," McQuaid told ESPN.com Wednesday. "It's an internal Amaury decision. All I would say [to Clerc] is 'goodbye,' and you can read between the lines if you like."
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=3621096
All this absolutely stinks, and as I as I am concerned is the final nail in the coffin of pro cycling. To borrow a turn of phrase from Hunter S. Thompson...
Professional cycling is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the sport, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There is no positive side.0 -
Cheer up old chap, Lance will be back racing soon.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
aurelio
Professional cycling is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the sport, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There is no positive side.
could always rely on Hunter for optimism. if i had that view on cycling then i wouldnt bother following the races. In the end its just a sport, while it would be nice if the administrators pulled the heads out of their arses long enough to actually fix the sport it aint ever going to happen. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
"Professional cycling is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the sport, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There is no positive side."
Sounds more like pro basketball to me.0 -
With all the new positives coming out I wonder if that, after all Clercs talk of a clean race better without the UCI, isn't the reason he got the elbow by ASO
UCI probably convince Madame Marie-Odile it wouldn't have happened on their watch0 -
If by that you mean the UCI would not have acted with the zeal of Patrice Clerc, and so would have ensured that `bad publicity` would have been kept to the minimum (as in the 2008 Giro...), you have hit the nail squarely on the head.feersumendjinn wrote:With all the new positives coming out I wonder if that, after all Clercs talk of a clean race better without the UCI, isn't the reason he got the elbow by ASO. UCI probably convince Madame Marie-Odile it wouldn't have happened on their watch
For an in-depth interview with Clerc see:
http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/a ... -P,00.html
All I know is that this sport has an enormous potential. It has the values that can make it one of the world's great sports. But today we are at a crossroads. Either we redevelop this sport and give it a new heart, or we continue with the little scams and scandals of the past. Festina back in 1998, Operation Puerto last year and another scandal in three of four years, and the sport will never be the great sport it deserves to be.
It's true that, in a sense, we went looking for some of the problems we are facing, because we didn't want to run any more. And we're trying to flush out the problem of doping once and for all.
If we wanted to play like the previous UCI President (i.e. Hein Verbruggen) and say, "oh there is no problem...our athletes are the most tested etc., etc." I think we'd really have a lot to be guilty of today. But instead we have really gone after the problem. It's been hard. It's been very sad for the sport and even economically difficult, but it's necessary and we asked for it because we want to go to the root of the problem.
I think it is now pretty clear which way the likes of McQuaid, and now the ASO, have chosen to go at that cross roads...0 -
aurelio wrote:I think it is now pretty clear which way the likes of McQuaid, and now the ASO, have chosen to go at that cross roads...
Is it?0 -
One thing should be crystal clear to all sporting fans. Athletes can talk about how they are tested over and over and it doesn't mean they're clean. Organizations can talk tough on doping, but that doesn't prove they're tough. Jean-Etienne Amaury can talk all day about his committment to a clean TDF, but that isn't anything but talk. The proof is in the pudding, and Clerc caught and exposed dopers, plain and simple, and he is gone.0
-
And it seems that he is gone because he caught and exposed dopers rather too well for the likes of the UCI and his ASO paymasters...derby wrote:Clerc caught and exposed dopers, plain and simple, and he is gone.0 -
derby wrote:Organizations can talk tough on doping, but that doesn't prove they're tough. Jean-Etienne Amaury can talk all day about his committment to a clean TDF, but that isn't anything but talk. The proof is in the pudding, and Clerc caught and exposed dopers, plain and simple, and he is gone.
Again Clerc leaving is only proof he has left. Anything more than that is worthless conjecture. The proof of the pudding is next year, not this. If ASO/TdF under new leadership doesn't maintain Clerc's efforts then you may be proven right.
Clerc had to go as he was tearing the fabric of the sport apart not through his anti-doping efforts but his egotistical belief that the TdF was the only thing in cycling that mattered. It's no use having strong anti-doping measures at the TdF if doping in the sport is rampant elsewhere, and his continuing war with the UCI was undermining the blood passport programme they're trying to put in place to ensure a cleaner sport throughout the year.0 -
stagehopper wrote:derby wrote:Organizations can talk tough on doping, but that doesn't prove they're tough. Jean-Etienne Amaury can talk all day about his committment to a clean TDF, but that isn't anything but talk. The proof is in the pudding, and Clerc caught and exposed dopers, plain and simple, and he is gone.
Again Clerc leaving is only proof he has left. Anything more than that is worthless conjecture. The proof of the pudding is next year, not this. If ASO/TdF under new leadership doesn't maintain Clerc's efforts then you may be proven right.
Clerc had to go as he was tearing the fabric of the sport apart not through his anti-doping efforts but his egotistical belief that the TdF was the only thing in cycling that mattered. It's no use having strong anti-doping measures at the TdF if doping in the sport is rampant elsewhere, and his continuing war with the UCI was undermining the blood passport programme they're trying to put in place to ensure a cleaner sport throughout the year.
+1 for this view. Clerc ego against McQuaid's is what caused the problems.
Prudhomme's stil at the reins and they've refused 3 teams at Paris-Tours for not being in the UCI's passport scheme.0 -
Eh? We've trusted the UCI time after time to deliver and they keep failing. You name it, they've fluffed it up in style, from the Pro Tour to doping. McQuaid's demonstrated pure panache when it comes to bungling and insulting people, trampling on organisations like WADA, ASO right down to trying to silence Jaksche.leguape wrote:Clerc ego against McQuaid's is what caused the problems.
Clerc and Prudhomme have thrown away the rule book but only because the governing body was proving incompetent, like a couple of guns in a Wild West town they had to don starred badges and act as sherrifs to make the law in their parish. This is what you get when the UCI fails.0 -
Kléber wrote:
Eh? We've trusted the UCI time after time to deliver and they keep failing. You name it, they've fluffed it up in style, from the Pro Tour to doping. McQuaid's demonstrated pure panache when it comes to bungling and insulting people, trampling on organisations like WADA, ASO right down to trying to silence Jaksche.leguape wrote:Clerc ego against McQuaid's is what caused the problems.
Clerc and Prudhomme have thrown away the rule book but only because the governing body was proving incompetent, like a couple of guns in a Wild West town they had to don starred badges and act as sherrifs to make the law in their parish. This is what you get when the UCI fails.
Can you point to the bit where I say that McQuaid is some sort of innocent? Clerc and Prudhomme were making financial decisions based on potential revenue for their employers ASO. They targeted doping, an area of obvious weakness for the UCI, to leverage their position not because of any notions "saving the sport" but because it was the quickest way to get a result. That's business done the French way: a dash of moralising masking ultimately venal interests.0 -
Did you really mean this? :shock:stagehopper wrote:derby wrote:Organizations can talk tough on doping, but that doesn't prove they're tough. Jean-Etienne Amaury can talk all day about his committment to a clean TDF, but that isn't anything but talk. The proof is in the pudding, and Clerc caught and exposed dopers, plain and simple, and he is gone.
Again Clerc leaving is only proof he has left. Anything more than that is worthless conjecture. The proof of the pudding is next year, not this. If ASO/TdF under new leadership doesn't maintain Clerc's efforts then you may be proven right.
Clerc had to go as he was tearing the fabric of the sport apart not through his anti-doping efforts but his egotistical belief that the TdF was the only thing in cycling that mattered. It's no use having strong anti-doping measures at the TdF if doping in the sport is rampant elsewhere, and his continuing war with the UCI was undermining the blood passport programme they're trying to put in place to ensure a cleaner sport throughout the year.
And here are some recent comments from an insider on the UCI's blood passport program.
from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... oct07news2
Holczer warned that even the International Cycling Union's (UCI) biological passport may not meet the grade. "We are going to see how many of the riders are positive because he was tested nine times for the biological passport," he added.
Remember Ricco's comments about this? I'm sure Lemond is eating this up. Caitlin and his internal testing protocols are looking less and less effective and more and more like a smokescreen.0 -
An IOC board member is now asking whether cycling should be dropped from the Olympics. Now I know doping goes on and on but since when has catching cheats been a reason to exclude people, it's a sign that the net is closing in. Too many other sports, such as the growth-hormone fueled swimming, are in denial of doping and don't control enough for many banned substances.0
-
Kléber wrote:An IOC board member is now asking whether cycling should be dropped from the Olympics. Now I know doping goes on and on but since when has catching cheats been a reason to exclude people, it's a sign that the net is closing in. Too many other sports, such as the growth-hormone fueled swimming, are in denial of doping and don't control enough for many banned substances.
I can understand why he might say this but how many cyclists tested positive at the olympics? Since they proved ineffective at getting cyclists then why should we assume that other sports dont have the same problems? How many of them unveiled a shock test for a substance that no-one apparently thought there was a test for? How many of them are retesting samples from earlier this year?0 -
Could it be that Clerc gets the bullet for being over zealous with testing?
Shook the apple cart a bit to much for ASO's and UCI's liking??
Now with all the re-testing going ahead it's just opened to big a can of worms for both organisations.0 -
Kléber wrote:An IOC board member is now asking whether cycling should be dropped from the Olympics. Now I know doping goes on and on but since when has catching cheats been a reason to exclude people, it's a sign that the net is closing in. Too many other sports, such as the growth-hormone fueled swimming, are in denial of doping and don't control enough for many banned substances.
Quite possibly an IOC board member with a vested interest in making space in the Olympic calendar by dumping cycling so they can include synchronised clog-hopping. The IOC lost the moral ground quite some time ago.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
derby wrote:Did you really mean this? :shock:
And here are some recent comments from an insider on the UCI's blood passport program.
from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... oct07news2
Holczer warned that even the International Cycling Union's (UCI) biological passport may not meet the grade. "We are going to see how many of the riders are positive because he was tested nine times for the biological passport," he added.
Remember Ricco's comments about this? I'm sure Lemond is eating this up. Caitlin and his internal testing protocols are looking less and less effective and more and more like a smokescreen.
Yes. What is the point of having top level professional sport if you only drug test to any extent at one major event? It has to be across all events to an equal standard - both in and out of competition. I thought that the clash of egos between Clerc at ASO and Verbruggen at the UCI was proving to be absolutely detrimental in the work to get the biological passport programme in place which is a major step forward to high quality drug testing across all events. Both are now gone.
Ricco always likes to talk, but he's fundamentally thick. The urine test for CERA was very new and possibly a little unreliable. It would appear the extra time since has allowed the development of a more reliable CERA blood test - hence the rash of positives now emanating.
Also Holczer comments appear a bit garbled to me. The biological passport programme is in the process of being set up - I doubt any samples from it have been tested yet for CERA in the same way those teams testing internally couldn't test for it - a test didn't exist. It does now. The biological passport has to be the ultimate deterrant as those frozen samples provide a core of truth through your racing career which can always be revisited.
As for internal testing wasn't it CSC's and Astana's Dr Rasmus Damsgaard, who oversees the internal testing programs, who recently complained that WADA laboratories were sitting on "a mountain of positive EPO" from athletes that have not failed a test? From a BBC report:
Dr Damsgaard inspected the electronic profiles, or gels as they are known, of five samples declared negative by a WADA laboratory, and said they showed clear signs of EPO being present.
"It was very obvious that the gels were very un-natural or very different from natural distributions," Damsgaard told the BBC. "But I also saw that they were declared negative because they didn't fulfil the WADA criteria of a positive test; although they looked suspicious and had no natural bands at all, they were still declared negative."
"WADA is sitting on a mountain of positive EPO. They have these very strict rules, and declare that everything is working fine. But it's not working at all! You can more or less do whatever you like with EPO and you will not be charged."0
