Cull of Team Management

Patrick1.0

ACMadone wrote:

Although on a slightly differnet note, maybe not because he's technically part owner, who thinks David Millar is now clean?

I think he's a pretty good liar if he isn't.

emadden

http://img169.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13709_Lance_Book_01_122_674lo.jpg

DavMartinR

Patrick1.0 wrote:

Squaggles wrote:

Gianetti , in charge of the squeaky clean Saunier Duval team .
A bunch of fans on an internet site can probably agree on most of the people who should never be let loose near young riders , surely people involved in running the sport can work it out . The fact they haven't done anything about is more due to the fact they don't really want to do anything about it .

I think more the case that it is difficult to do anything about it. We all know. The commentators on Eurosport know when to suspect a rider of being dirty and which teams are dirtier than others but they can't say anything. Many of the riders and their team managers know, but they can't say anything either. When you stop somebody from doing their job, you have to have a very good reason especially when it's not you that is paying them to do that job. The sponsors are the real problem. If they're happy with ex druggy so and so running their team and carrying on the same old tricks and traditions he learned in his time in competitive cycling then who can step in?

With regard the sponsors, what about if a new sponsor wants to come in to cycling (Who would at the moment) and they want to sponsor a team for 2 years at say 8 million a year, the first 8 million goes to the team.
The other 8 million then goes to the UCI ( I know but its all we've got). If the team have 2 postive dope tests then the UCI should have the right to remove all that sponsors logo's from the team.
With the 8 million the UCI has in the bank it will take over the team with regard sponsorship and the team made to wear a UCI team kit (which should look butt ugly).

This maybe punishing clean riders for former team members law breaking, but it could make riders thing twice about doping? Knowing that the whole team could be stigmatised as black sheep if they go down the doping road.

As for the sponsor this may put some pressure on them to make sure the team is as clean as it can be. And for new sponsors coming into the sport there is a team already there which has been run by the UCI, which should be clean. This maybe would give other sponsors confidence to sponsor in cycling knowing that they are cleaning up there act.

RichN95.

DavMartinR wrote:

The other 8 million then goes to the UCI ( I know but its all we've got). If the team have 2 postive dope tests then the UCI should have the right to remove all that sponsors logo's from the team.
With the 8 million the UCI has in the bank it will take over the team with regard sponsorship and the team made to wear a UCI team kit (which should look butt ugly).

How about something like this.

(Apologies to Linus Gerdemann, who's probably one of the good guys)

dave_1

fact is most teams have been tainted by doping and I think that could be solved at least partly solved over night by firing the 1990s brigade who manage the teams and run the sport...then you lose a whole generation of shady soignuers, their contacts, Drs etc.

DavMartinR

RichN95 wrote:

DavMartinR wrote:

The other 8 million then goes to the UCI ( I know but its all we've got). If the team have 2 postive dope tests then the UCI should have the right to remove all that sponsors logo's from the team.
With the 8 million the UCI has in the bank it will take over the team with regard sponsorship and the team made to wear a UCI team kit (which should look butt ugly).

How about something like this.

(Apologies to Linus Gerdemann, who's probably one of the good guys)

Yea thats it. And maybe something like follow at your own risk? On the backside of their shorts.