Simeoni gives back national champ shirt

finchy

As a result of his team not being picked for the Giro, which he blames on Armstrong, Filippo Simeoni is giving back his national champion's shirt.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... illot.html

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... nique.html

Toys out of pram or principled stance? I'm too tired to think now.

blazing_saddles

Very definitely a principled stance.
Excluding the Maglia Tricolore, when his team is eligible in all respects, is just about unheard of.
If we expected him to ride, what of the tifosi?

The only way the French champion won't be at the Tour is if a Fuji rider wins it, the week before the race starts.

This is the ultimate protest and won't have been taken without a good deal of soul searching.

Anonymous

That is really quite a shame, but it is a very strong gesture.

jimmythecuckoo

Get Simeoni on Team Sky... I will support him.

aurelio_-_banned

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Excluding the Maglia Tricolore, when his team is eligible in all respects, is just about unheard of. If we expected him to ride, what of the tifosi?

They won't mind in the least. As everybody knows, only 'The French' 'hate' Armstrong... :roll:

avoidingmyphd

from cyclingnews - one of the reasons the race director gave for the snub was that it was uncivilised of Simeoni not to spend some of the 7 hours of Milan San Remo "clarifying the 2004 incident with Armstrong".

Edited to add link: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... may05news2, 2nd story down, 'Zomegnan blasts Simeoni, team exclusion linked to Armstrong?'

skavanagh.bikeradar

For real?

micron

He was 30 minutes down at T-A - might that be because he was riding 'clean'? I shall watch, because I love the race, but this leaves a very nasty taste. Seriously, what kind of message does this send out about the sport - still, I have to enjoy the delicious irony of Zomegnan falling over himself backwards to get Armstrong and then being unable to sell the TV rights to the US because they're too expensive.

dave_1

good move by Simeoni..Zomegan devalues what should be a really important title...the loser is the Italian National Champs as an event, its prestige damaged...Zomegan's fault

blazing_saddles

Since when has being 30 minutes down and abandoning an early season race been a pre-requisite for exclusion?
It stinks.
So, Zomegnan thinks it's Simeoni's responsibilty to hold out the olive branch?
There was I thinking it's the guy who gets physical, that does the apologising.

Moreover, Simeoni suspected that the decision could be linked to Lance Armstrong's participation in the race, something Zomegnan indirectly confirmed by his response. "In Italy, some newspapers consider him [Armstrong] to be a sort of messiah; he has a lot of power. So, had he wanted to deliver a message of equity and reconciliation, he could have acted to have us on the race. One word from him [to the organiser - ed.] would have been enough," Simeoni added.

Sounds like they've kissed and made up, doesn't it? :roll:

DavMartinR

Simeoni wrote Armstrong a letter at the beginning of the season. No doubt begging for forgiveness and apologizing for getting his face in the way of all that saliva?

Not a lot else he could do.

aurelio_-_banned

micron wrote:

I have to enjoy the delicious irony of Zomegnan falling over himself backwards to get Armstrong and then being unable to sell the TV rights to the US because they're too expensive.

Didn't he bump up the price to Versus in the US because Armstrong was riding, and as a result Versus turned round and told him to stuff it? Hardly surprising really given that even when Armstrong is riding watching pro bike racing in the US a very minority pass-time, drawing at best just a couple of hundred thousand viewers from a population of over 300 million!

---

So what if the national TV audiences for the Tour de France, which starts Saturday, might be smaller than the crowds you'd find at a couple of good-sized malls?

...OLN, now in about 42 million U.S. TV households, will air two hours of daily live coverage, starting at 9:30 a.m. ET. The coverage will be repeated at least twice daily throughout the three-week race.

OLN, which drew an average of about 100,000 households for its live coverage last year also bought time on CBS to air three one-hour specials on consecutive Saturday's starting July 14

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/comment/ ... and-tv.htm

Things don`t seem to have improved much since...

Tour de France ratings down so far on Versus
July 14, 2008

Versus network's coverage of the Tour is averaging 143,000 total viewers (people 2 years old or older) per airing, according to The Nielsen Co. That's the average across 35 live and taped telecasts between July 5th and 10th.

That number is down from the 171,000 average total viewers for 135 telecasts between July 2nd and 29th last year, Nielsen said.

Viewership of live Tour broadcast, which usually starts at 5:30 a.m. in these parts, is down from 343,000 in 2007 to 230,000 so far this year.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksand ... wn_so.html

All in all the idea that race organisers need Armstrong more than he needs them, and the notion that Armstrong has turned pro bike racing into a major sport in the USA, are both myths conjured up by his PR team!

JC.152

avoidingmyphd wrote:

from cyclingnews - one of the reasons the race director gave for the snub was that it was uncivilised of Simeoni not to spend some of the 7 hours of Milan San Remo "clarifying the 2004 incident with Armstrong".

Edited to add link: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... may05news2, 2nd story down, 'Zomegnan blasts Simeoni, team exclusion linked to Armstrong?'

sorry if it sounds stupid but what was the 04incident?

Kléber

I'm sure there have been years when the French champion didn't start the Tour de France, although this is different given the jersey is decided a week before the race.

A symbolic gesture from Simeoni, since he won't be wearing for much longer. I sympathise with him though, the idea of seeing some tiny Spanish outfit accepted whilst he is excluded is stupid.

aurelio_-_banned

JC.152 wrote:

sorry if it sounds stupid but what was the 04incident?

"Lance Armstrong, showing all the diplomatic skills of a playground bully, stamped his authority on one of the rebels of the peloton, Filippo Simeoni, yesterday."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/ju ... rdefrance1

DaveyL

Just out of interest, the Lemond - McIlvain phone call was illegal, wasn't ity? And didn't Greg also lie to Steph when she asked if he was taping the call?

Chip \'oyler

aurelio wrote:

JC.152 wrote:

sorry if it sounds stupid but what was the 04incident?

"Lance Armstrong, showing all the diplomatic skills of a playground bully, stamped his authority on one of the rebels of the peloton, Filippo Simeoni, yesterday."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/ju ... rdefrance1

Thanks for posting that link up. It will help newcomers to the sport understand why there is a lot of cyclists who don't like Armstrong.

Me included.

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

Just out of interest, the Lemond - McIlvain phone call was illegal, wasn't ity? And didn't Greg also lie to Steph when she asked if he was taping the call?

Given that Armstrong had already threatened to destroy Lemond's name (as with his threat that he would find 10 people who would testify that they had seen Lemond use Epo), and various associates of Armstrong had already threatened to destroy Lemond's business interests in cycling if he didn't back down about Armstrong's 'alleged' doping, I feel Lemond was entirely justified in trying to protect his interests.

If you are interested in illegal acts and lying, what do you think about the nonsense Armstrong has spun over the years? Oh, and isn't doping in sport a serious crime in the USA?

aurelio_-_banned

Chip \'oyler wrote:

aurelio wrote:

JC.152 wrote:

sorry if it sounds stupid but what was the 04incident?

"Lance Armstrong, showing all the diplomatic skills of a playground bully, stamped his authority on one of the rebels of the peloton, Filippo Simeoni, yesterday."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/ju ... rdefrance1

Thanks for posting that link up. It will help newcomers to the sport understand why there is a lot of cyclists who don't like Armstrong.

Me included.

For those who haven't heard it before the Lemond / Stephanie McIllvain conversation is always worth a listen.

http://www.filefactory.com/file/af44003/n/gregstef_mp3

DaveyL

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Just out of interest, the Lemond - McIlvain phone call was illegal, wasn't ity? And didn't Greg also lie to Steph when she asked if he was taping the call?

Given that Armstrong had already threatened to destroy Lemond's name (as with his threat that he would find 10 people who would testify that they had seen Lemond use Epo), and various associates of Armstrong had already threatened to destroy Lemond's business interests in cycling if he didn't back down about Armstrong's 'alleged' doping, I feel Lemond was entirely justified in trying to protect his interests.

If you are interested in illegal acts and lying, what do you think about the nonsense Armstrong has spun over the years? Oh, and isn't doping in sport a serious crime in the USA?

I think it's all nonsense, as you say. It is possible to criticise dubious behaviour on both sides, believe it or not. Just wondering if you'd be as happy for the British government to send down an Asian bloke on terrorism charges based on an illegally-obtained phone conversation. Or are you a moral relativist?

teagar

DaveyL wrote:

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Just out of interest, the Lemond - McIlvain phone call was illegal, wasn't ity? And didn't Greg also lie to Steph when she asked if he was taping the call?

Given that Armstrong had already threatened to destroy Lemond's name (as with his threat that he would find 10 people who would testify that they had seen Lemond use Epo), and various associates of Armstrong had already threatened to destroy Lemond's business interests in cycling if he didn't back down about Armstrong's 'alleged' doping, I feel Lemond was entirely justified in trying to protect his interests.

If you are interested in illegal acts and lying, what do you think about the nonsense Armstrong has spun over the years? Oh, and isn't doping in sport a serious crime in the USA?

I think it's all nonsense, as you say. It is possible to criticise dubious behaviour on both sides, believe it or not. Just wondering if you'd be as happy for the British government to send down an Asian bloke on terrorism charges based on an illegally-obtained phone conversation. Or are you a moral relativist?

Why does he have to be Asian?

Nevermind.


The Giro didn't want to give someone who upsets, riles, and has views on doping on those still riding, the limelight, which the Italain jersy combined with the Giro would provide.

It's logical, if a little irritating.

moray_gub

I suspect here that most of you normally wouldnt give a monkeys if the Italian champion was not riding the Giro . Its just another chance for you bandwagon jumpers to have a pop at LA and the Obsesssed One to get all the old links out again.

dave_1

Moray Gub wrote:

I suspect here that most of you normally wouldnt give a monkeys if the Italian champion was not riding the Giro . Its just another chance for you bandwagon jumpers to have a pop at LA and the Obsesssed One to get all the old links out again.

true enough...I still kinda feel the National Champs should be a big deal in any country so a bit dissapointed like that but ...Armstrong will get people tuning in from all over the world to this event and one can only really see that as good....

DaveyL

teagar wrote:

Nevermind.


The Giro didn't want to give someone who upsets, riles, and has views on doping on those still riding, the limelight, which the Italain jersy combined with the Giro would provide. It's logical, if a little irritating.

Doesn't have to be, but if Plod is going to nick someone on terrorism charges these days, it is more than likely he (and it will probably be a he as well though it doesn't have to be) will be Asian. Nothing like missing the point, though...

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

Just wondering if you'd be as happy for the British government to send down an Asian bloke on terrorism charges based on an illegally-obtained phone conversation.

Once again you resort to `straw man` tactics. That tape is part of the overwhelming amount of evidence showing that Armstrong doped. However, I fully accept that it would probably not constitute legally admissible evidence if Armstrong were ever taken to court, and I have no problem with that. Nor would I want to see Armstrong or anyone else convicted of any criminal charge on the basis of inadmissable evidence. It still stands as good evidence that he was a doper though!

DaveyL

Once again? :roll:

I thought it was you who was resorting to straw man tactics by calling up some of LA's other misdemeanours when replying to my original question about the legality of the tape.

Anyway, glad we've agreed the tape, damning content notwithstanding, was illegally obtained and inadmissable...

Kléber

Plenty of evidence about Al Capone being a gangster was inadmissable. He was finally put in prison on charges of tax dodging, not for being a racketeer, murderer or smuggler.

Back to Simeoni, it's just a stunt. He's only got two months left in the jersey. I do sympathise with his plight and that of his team and it only serves to highlight the chaotic organisation of the race. Can anyone tell me why Xacobeo Galicia get the nod ahead of Flaminia or Amore & Vita?

andyp

Moray Gub wrote:

I suspect here that most of you normally wouldnt give a monkeys if the Italian champion was not riding the Giro . Its just another chance for you bandwagon jumpers to have a pop at LA and the Obsesssed One to get all the old links out again.

I suspect you're probably right in most cases.

But, once again a team, Ceramica Flaminia, takes part in all the initiatives the UCI mandate to ensure they can ride the races their sponsors are interested in, only to get snubbed at the last hurdle by teams, such as Xacobeo Galicia, who don't participate and don't really have any interest in the Italian market.

Let's hope that the Vaughters initiative to get a common understanding between teams, race organisers and the UCI over which criteria actually apply to race entry is successful.

leguape

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Just wondering if you'd be as happy for the British government to send down an Asian bloke on terrorism charges based on an illegally-obtained phone conversation.

Once again you resort to `straw man` tactics. That tape is part of the overwhelming amount of evidence showing that Armstrong doped. However, I fully accept that it would probably not constitute legally admissible evidence if Armstrong were ever taken to court, and I have no problem with that. Nor would I want to see Armstrong or anyone else convicted of any criminal charge on the basis of inadmissable evidence. It still stands as good evidence that he was a doper though!

It's unreliable testimony from someone who changes their story depending on who they're speaking to. A barrister on their first case would put a coach, horses and the whole bloody caravane publicitaire through her evidence. It's lousy evidence, don't dress it up as "part of the overwhelming evidence", it's contradictory, speculative and incomplete when seen in the broader context of what she has said. Let's start with this: "You said in a sworn deposition that you hadn't witnessed Armstrong admitting to doping..."

Simeoni has no absolute right to expect his team to be selected and while he's blaming Zomegnan and Armstrong for his exclusion, he's omitting the real story of why Fuji are there and Flaminia not. Wasn't it CAS who ruled that forced RCS to select Fuji by going to court over their non-selection?

RCS' use of discretionary selection as their defence (as compared to ASO's damaging the image) was lousy but Flaminia have had plenty of notice about their non-selection and could have taken that route to ensure their participation. They didn't.

aurelio_-_banned

leguape wrote:

It's unreliable testimony from someone who changes their story depending on who they're speaking to.

I think you meant to say, "Ìt is legally inadmissible evidence from someone who understandably `changed their story` when it was made clear to them that both they and their partner would be sacked from their jobs with Oakley if they refused to do so"...

blazing_saddles

Moray Gub wrote:

I suspect here that most of you normally wouldnt give a monkeys if the Italian champion was not riding the Giro . Its just another chance for you bandwagon jumpers to have a pop at LA and the Obsesssed One to get all the old links out again.

Not me, pal. I brought it up, as soon as the original teams were announced.
Ironically, the previous national champ gets to ride.......on a lowly Continental squad.
I'm annoyed, not just over Simeoni, but over quality riders like Gianpaolo Caruso and Enrico Rossi.
Not to mention the message this sends in respect of doping.

I guess it's how polarised the individual's view on pro cycling is.

LA is only a factor in this mess. The real culprit is Zomegnan.

Of course, this sort of indignation was perfectly acceptable, last year, when the shoe was on the other foot.