Boonen excluded...thoughts?
Tom Boonen has been banned from riding in this year's TdF. Although the UCI won't be taking any diciplinary action against him, ASO has taken the decision not to allow him to race in the Tour... mainly it seems to 'preserve his reputation' (bullshit), and the 'reputation of the tour' (hypocritical).
Although I can see their point about not wanting to condone cocaine use, I think Boonen has been treated harshly. Cocaine is in NO WAY performance enhancing - quite the opposite, it's self destructive. He should be given the support to overcome any problems he has that lead to him taking recreational drug, and I believe that punishing him and ostracising him from the peloton could lead him into a downward spiral.
For a rider approaching the peak of his career it would be a shame to see it all fall apart. When riders have underlying emotional problems I'd like to see the the pro cycling bodies give them the support they need. After all, he has NOT doped.
Although I can see their point about not wanting to condone cocaine use, I think Boonen has been treated harshly. Cocaine is in NO WAY performance enhancing - quite the opposite, it's self destructive. He should be given the support to overcome any problems he has that lead to him taking recreational drug, and I believe that punishing him and ostracising him from the peloton could lead him into a downward spiral.
For a rider approaching the peak of his career it would be a shame to see it all fall apart. When riders have underlying emotional problems I'd like to see the the pro cycling bodies give them the support they need. After all, he has NOT doped.
0
Comments
-
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12631005
at the bottom.
It's just a farce. No-one benefits from the exclusion.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Apart from the fact that he's been a bit of an idiot (once forgivable, but twice - jeez) I think exclusion is a bit harsh.
Taking a recreational drug has about as much to do with cycling as observing speed limits while driving. Would he have been excluded for doing 37mph in a 30mph limited area? Or non-payment of his TV license?
P0 -
He's done 180km/h in a 90 zone and been done for drink driving, so no.pauln99 wrote:Would he have been excluded for doing 37mph in a 30mph limited area?
I find it amusing that someone who might have "passively" taken cocaine is blocked from the race yet one of the largest enforcers of omerta and arguably the world's biggest doping cheat is allowed to start :twisted:0 -
Kleber"He's done 180km/h in a 90 zone and been done for drink driving, so no. "
Christ almighty. The man's a hazard :-).I find it amusing that someone who might have "passively" taken cocaine is blocked from the race yet one of the largest enforcers of omerta and arguably the world's biggest doping cheat is allowed to start
Evidence old boy. Evidence.
P0 -
To start with it has been scientifically proven that he used Epo to 'win' the 1999 Tour.pauln99 wrote:Evidence old boy. Evidence.
"there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
Dr Michael Ashenden.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
0 -
Aurelio
You're quick on the draw. I'm kind of new round here, but I sense you're pretty riled up about this issue. All angry and gnarled. And kind of ugly. But still pleased with yourself.
Maybe I should have said
Sufficient evidence old boy. Sufficient evidence.
P0 -
Lets keep to the question shall we...
I thought it was a massive over reaction last year... And as much as Boonen excites the hell out of me in the classics, he's gotta be some sort of d**k to be caught out on the fluffy again. Especially at exactly the same time! is he celebrating someones birthday each time or something??0 -
Too be honest he's getting off rather lightly. He's tested positive 3 times for recreational drugs, and he's had no suspension/punishment. Whether or not it's a PED is irrelevant as it's still illegal...
Matt Stevens got a two year ban from Rugby.
Chelsea Sacked Adrian Mutu.
Tommeke only get excluded from one race...0 -
I think he should be allowed to ride. His offence was nothing to do with cycling and broke none of it's laws. It's purely a matter for his team and/or the police to deal with.
Would a rider have been excluded for tax evasion or hitting their wife? No. But they're both worse crimes.
As it is the Tour is deprived of one of the sport's biggest stars.Twitter: @RichN950 -
redddraggon wrote:Too be honest he's getting off rather lightly. He's tested positive 3 times for recreational drugs, and he's had no suspension/punishment. Whether or not it's a PED is irrelevant as it's still illegal...
Matt Stevens got a two year ban from Rugby.
Chelsea Sacked Adrian Mutu.
Tommeke only get excluded from one race...
'Only' got excluded from one race. You make it sound like the TdF is just your everyday run-of-the-mill event.
Stage wins at the TdF are worth teams upwards of 1/2 million dollars.
And he has had a form of suspension/punishment - he missed last year's TdF, he'll likely miss this years', and of course he has to face a Belgium court of law again - where this time his 'punishment' could be quite significant.
I'm not the biggest fan of Tommke; but to say he hasn't been punished isn't quite true.
And as far as the ASO being concerned about maintaining the 'reputation of the Tour' ; now that's a joke.0 -
His punishment as is is exceptionally light. He and his team should shut the f**k up and take the rap (note rap, not wrap) instead of bleating on and threatening to sue the ASO.
I can't believe all the drug apologists here - sums up our attitude in the UK - rich people take coke and whats the harm; poor people take crack cocaine and they're demonised.
Bag'o wank :twisted:\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
SpaceJunk wrote:redddraggon wrote:Too be honest he's getting off rather lightly. He's tested positive 3 times for recreational drugs, and he's had no suspension/punishment. Whether or not it's a PED is irrelevant as it's still illegal...
Matt Stevens got a two year ban from Rugby.
Chelsea Sacked Adrian Mutu.
Tommeke only get excluded from one race...
'Only' got excluded from one race. You make it sound like the TdF is just your everyday run-of-the-mill event.
Stage wins at the TdF are worth teams upwards of 1/2 million dollars.
And he has had a form of suspension/punishment - he missed last year's TdF, he'll likely miss this years', and of course he has to face a Belgium court of law again - where this time his 'punishment' could be quite significant.
I'm not the biggest fan of Tommke; but to say he hasn't been punished isn't quite true.
And as far as the ASO being concerned about maintaining the 'reputation of the Tour' ; now that's a joke.
Yeh, he got excluded last year, you would have thought he'd have learnt lesson....
...he knew what happened last year, and it's not as though he's screwed up once. He made a mistake and he'll have to live with the consequences. I'm afraid he's just too high profile to go sniffing the white powder and get away with it.
To be fair to ASO, they are being consistent, they did it last year, so they should do it this year too.0 -
pauln99 wrote:Aurelio
You're quick on the draw. I'm kind of new round here, but I sense you're pretty riled up about this issue. All angry and gnarled. And kind of ugly. But still pleased with yourself.
Maybe I should have said
Sufficient evidence old boy. Sufficient evidence.
P
Oh no !!!!!!! you have unleased the hideous monster who likes to bore us all to death with the greg/stef link for the 1,234,895th time ...........................aggghhhhhhhhGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
I personally think this is more to do with his attitude... he's been done before, his career at the top ain't that long so he can save any dabbling for after. There's lack of respect on his part.
Yeah a bit of Coke is nothing on the richter scale of doping, but the authorities can't be seen to be light on any form of abuse. It would be a bad look.
he's just been silly... AGAIN!0 -
I agree -- it is less the coke and more grow up.
The story about blackouts is a little scary though -- geez, I stopped doing that in college (like most people).
Grow up.0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:I can't believe all the drug apologists here - sums up our attitude in the UK - rich people take coke and whats the harm; poor people take crack cocaine and they're demonised.
Bag'o wank :twisted:
Got nothing to do with his choice of illegal drug. Personally I think his team should be more concerned about the fact that's he taking coke and the harm he might be doing to himself than whether he rides the Tour or not. But i'm being naive - we all know that's not how pro teams operate. There are numerous examples of riders being let down by teams when they need help more than ever (LA being effectively dropped by Cofidis during his darkest moments springs to mind immediately - go ahead Aurelio... he probably never even had cancer, right? )
The points have been made already: it wasn't a PED; he's facing criminal preceeding; it should be treated as a crime completely unrealted to his profession - just the same as if he had a mountain of unpaid parking tickets.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Too be honest he's getting off rather lightly. He's tested positive 3 times for recreational drugs, and he's had no suspension/punishment. Whether or not it's a PED is irrelevant as it's still illegal...
Matt Stevens got a two year ban from Rugby.
Chelsea Sacked Adrian Mutu.
Tommeke only get excluded from one race...
Matt Stevens was an in competition test - so an infringement of the laws.
Mutu - If Quick Step fired Boonen, I wouldn't see any problem with it (and before anyone goes down the financial angle, Chelsea paid nearly 30 million Euros for Mutu). He did get banned though - but he didn't have club.
Coke is illegal, but the ASO aren't the police.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Moray Gub wrote:
It's very much like Miss World. There's a judging panel - Aurelio, David Walsh, Greg LeMond and Michele Ferrari (to provide balance).
There's the interview section where they all blab on about world peace and curing cancer and stuff.
Then there's the swimwear section - this is so the panel can look for tell tale needle marks.
All the time iainf72 is there to provide the very latest news so they're all up to date.
The panel then confer and name the one that's the most famous.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Then there's the swimwear section - this is so the panel can look for tell tale needle marks.
If it's heroin track marks that's a different story. They get banned for the next Tour and the blood dopers are ushered straight to the podium. Sh*t i'm becoming as cynical as everyone else here.0 -
Dedalus wrote:it wasn't a PED; he's facing criminal preceeding; it should be treated as a crime completely unrealted to his profession - just the same as if he had a mountain of unpaid parking tickets.
If you got coked up at the weekend and tested postive in a work sponsored drug test on tuesday you would expect to lose your job. This is his third positive and he's getting what amounts to a suspension (but only from ASO races, the UCI will let him compete elsewhere). Its a light punishement.
Oh and If you think unpaid parking tickets and cocaine abuse are equals then I'd suggest you have an extremely limited understanding of the law, drugs and parking enforcement.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:
If you got coked up at the weekend and tested postive in a work sponsored drug test on tuesday you would expect to lose your job. This is his third positive and he's getting what amounts to a suspension (but only from ASO races, the UCI will let him compete elsewhere). Its a light punishement.
Oh and If you think unpaid parking tickets and cocaine abuse are equals then I'd suggest you have an extremely limited understanding of the law, drugs and parking enforcement.
ASO and UCI aren't his employers. If Quick Step fire him, then fair enough.
Some mentioned parking tickets, but I, earlier on, mentioned wife beating and tax evasion - would you exclude him if he did those? I doubt the Tour would.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:
If you got coked up at the weekend and tested postive in a work sponsored drug test on tuesday you would expect to lose your job....Oh and If you think unpaid parking tickets and cocaine abuse are equals then I'd suggest you have an extremely limited understanding of the law, drugs and parking enforcement.
If you think professional cyclists and council officers are equals then i'd suggest you have an extremely limited understanding of life
If you're going to insist on pedantic differentiation of crimes, you have to also recognize that pro-cycling is very different from an average life. How many times has the regulatory body for your industry knocked on your door unannounced and demanded blood and urine samples? 0 -
I can't see that the ASO can ban him. There's no official ban, so if QS bring him along what do they do? Make QS ride short a rider? In that case, they leave themselves open to the sort of legal action that may not finish before next years tour.
Also, it's only one step away from ASO picking the team squads.0 -
The question is : Did he violate a rule of cycling?
Answer : No.
So it's a reputational issue rather than anything else. If the UCI sanctioned him for bringing the sport into disrepute (oh the irony) then perhaps they should exclude him but they haven't.
They're probably just jealous that Tom got all up on Sophie van Fit or whatever her name was.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
my opinion...
Professional cycling in its current form exists to serve two primary purposes:
1. To entertain us, the cycling fans
2. To provide commercial exposure for the firms who sponsor the riders and ultimately pay for the sport
Doping controls and sanctions exist to ensure that no one rider has an unfair advantage over the others, i.e. supporting support point one
IMO Boonen’s TDF ban is contrary to all of the above0 -
RichN95 wrote:
ASO and UCI aren't his employers. If Quick Step fire him, then fair enough.
Some mentioned parking tickets, but I, earlier on, mentioned wife beating and tax evasion - would you exclude him if he did those? I doubt the Tour would.
Firstly, if QS don't fire him then thats their problem - but my point is you should expect to be fired if you're ineligible to work - - or face some kind of sanction
And personally speaking yeah, if he beat up his wife or was gulity of tax evasion then yeah - I'd want him excluded - both are criminal charges after all.
Perhaps he should get a spot in the convicts TdF?\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0
never misses an opportunity to remind us that the guy cheated...and hijack any thread in the process 
