Boonen excluded...thoughts?
Comments
-
Dedalus wrote: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?
Parking tickets fall under civil law. Class A drug abuse falls under criminal law. They're not comparable so don't be bloody daft.
I have worked for American companies who did random drug tests before - usually urine but they had the right to take blood according to the waiver I signed. And thats the point, he knows the rules but is deciding to bitch and whine about missing out on the tour.
Theres a completely foolproof way of Boonen getting a TdF place; lay off the narcs.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
if we could look at this thread and dismiss doping for a moment, i dont think anyone would disagree with his exclusion. its a criminal offence, and one that harms many more people than just him, the line through dealers and carriers and spin off crime is significant. he is a c0ck who keeps re-offending and as has been said he shouldnt have an employer - its only because no-one else in the team can win he still has.
however the cries of double standards are all correct, there are many cyclists happily packing bags for the Tour who have caused more damage to the reputaton of the race and ccycling than boonen, and therein lies the problem
should he be unwelcome - yes. but so should many others.0 -
Croxted Avenger
You need to get a bit more bohemian my friend. All that puffed up righteous anger.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.
The rich that take coke are doing so within their means. When poor people take crack cocaine they typically end up having to turn to crime and it's for this reason that they are 'demonised'.
P0 -
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
Didn't take you long to start personally insulting a well informed, interesting and long- standing member of the forum. Whether you agree or not, his points are invariably impeccably put, and arguments compelling. No more bitter at watching pro-cycling descend to WWF levels than many others here.Dan0 -
pauln99 wrote:The rich that take coke are doing so within their means. When poor people take crack cocaine they typically end up having to turn to crime and it's for this reason that they are 'demonised'.
P
So its ok to break the law if you're rich by that rationale...you're just enforcing what I'm saying about the hypocrisy of attitudes to drugs.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
A woman in the West Midlands was arrested on her wedding day for criminal damage to a car park barrier when her foot slipped on her accelerator pedal.
If that was Tom, definitely he should be banned from riding the Tour de France..
A 70-year-old Cheshire pensioner, who had never been in trouble with the law before, was arrested for criminal damage after cutting back a neighbour's conifers too vigorously
Sames goes for that case, think of the damage to cycling's reputation if Tom had done that. Definite ban.
In another case, two Manchester children were arrested under firearms laws for being in possession of a plastic toy pistol.
Those kids should be banned from riding their bikes too, no doubt. Think of the damage done to the reputation of riding around your neighbourhood.
A child in Kent, who removed a slice of cucumber from a sandwich and threw it at another youngster, was arrested because the other child's parents claimed it was an assault.
Man, lucky that didn't happen on Prudhomme's watch. That kid would never be allowed to even get a bike. Prudhomme would be on the phone to Santa right away to make sure of it.
What an utter, total load of poppycock this situation is.
This is all about the ASO inventing villains so as to create headlines that assert them as the 'real' heads of state in cycling.
More powerful than the UCI.
Its a perverted form of protectionism in my opinion, Boonen is simply the pawn in a much larger power play that the ASO are still trying win over the UCI.
The ASO will stop at nothing to protect the 'queen status' of their stage race. At least be honest guys, it isn't about the 'clean' image of cycling at all. Its about reasserting the status of your event at the expense of a transparent and fair set of rules for the sport.
Stuff everybody else, stuff the UCI, stuff other events that (shudder to think) might one day compete with yours as the blue riband event in cycling.
You'll do your bit of grandstanding on this issue and garner loads of free publicity and through this cunning and duplicitous ploy, dupe the public into seeing an athlete with some human weaknesses into a villain. Right down there where he belongs with the other 'unwelcome' riders, like Rasmussen, Vinokourov and all. He's just as bad as them isn't he.
Meanwhile who's that enjoying a privileged position at the Tour unveiling, commentating and welcome in the Tour VIP suite? It isn't that lying cheating convicted doper Richard Virenque is it? It is! Well I'll be!
He's great for the Tour isn't he. Still so popular in France. Such an asset to have around. People like seeing him on TV again don't they - it really helps your ratings. You've forgiven him, because after all he's actually helping us make more money, and you like that.
Personally I'm sick to death of this kind of hypocrisy and the underlying exploitation of an individual athlete's circumstances for an organiser's commercial gain. And I hope Lefevre is able to sue the ASO over this. But I suspect there isn't time to get a legal opinion that would sway the ASO.
If anything right comes out of this, it should be a re-write of the UCI rules for organisers so as to prevent exclusion of any athletes from any event unless the rules of the sport have been broken.
I'm not condoning illegal drug use or criminality of any sort here. But the criminal justice system is there to deal with criminal matters. This justice process has already completed. The legal and moral case has played out already in the proper forum.
The ASO needs to be put in its place and fast. Boonen should ride. He hasn't broken the rules of cycling, this surely is the bottom line here.
The UCI needs to do it's job here in my opinion. Which is enforce the rules of the sport which have to apply to organisers as well as the athletes.
Let's bring some common sense back into this.0 -
pauln99 wrote:The rich that take coke are doing so within their means. When poor people take crack cocaine they typically end up having to turn to crime and it's for this reason that they are 'demonised'.
P
When the rich take coke they're funding a massive, murderous international criminal operation.0 -
Kléber wrote:
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:
Just go and blow some coke in his hair and see if the Tour organisers stop him from racing.....0 -
Go Boonen. The Tour's loss IMO. A superb rider. Pure class and power.
As for aurelio. It seems to me that he brings fact not opinion and enough evidence for LA not to be respected. I still hope Contador smashes him to pieces preferably in Caisse d'Epargne gear, gleaming white Sidis, riding a stylish Pinarello.
As for omerta. It seems that many people are on this forum are scared to condemn or go against LA - obviously scared he will bring his fat boy friends to talk to you with their black socks, shoes, jerseys, bib shorts, helmets, glasses, lenses and humour.Contador is the Greatest0 -
What a load of tosh. When the admirable Patrice Clerk was working for the ASO (with Greg Lemond working as an advisor) it looked like the Tour was going to split with the UCI so as to be able to implement a much more rigorous anti-doping program than the UCI were prepared to accept. Then Armstrong announced his comeback, met with the owners of the ASO and the UCI, and as a consequence Clerk has been sacked and the ASO have climbed back into bed with the corrupt clowns at the UCI.scottfrasernz wrote:This is all about the ASO inventing villains so as to create headlines that assert them as the 'real' heads of state in cycling. More powerful than the UCI...
Would that be the same Richard Virenque who was voted the second least admirable person in France after the right-wing politician, Le Pen? Who was endlessly mocked on French TV in the 'Les Guignols de l'info' program and whose phrase about doping 'without knowledge of his own free will' has become a popular French idiom meaning hypocritical denial?scottfrasernz wrote:...Meanwhile who's that enjoying a privileged position at the Tour unveiling, commentating and welcome in the Tour VIP suite? It isn't that lying cheating convicted doper Richard Virenque is it? It is! Well I'll be! He's great for the Tour isn't he. Still so popular in France...
The bottom line is that the UCI are still in the process of bringing disciplinary charges against Boonen for breaking one of those 'rule of cycling' you mention - the one about 'not bringing the sport into disrepute'.scottfrasernz wrote:...The ASO needs to be put in its place and fast. Boonen should ride. He hasn't broken the rules of cycling, this surely is the bottom line here.
This is what Pat McQuaid of the UCI, (not the ASO...) said on the matter when he announced that he was referring Boonen to the UCI's disciplinary committee.
"The behavior of Tom Boonen, even though it does not constitute a violation of the anti-doping rules, can be considered unacceptable (Art.1.2.079) and liable to harm the image, reputation or interests of cycling or the UCI (Art. 12.1.005).
"This infringement is punishable by a suspension of 1-6 months."
Anyhow, well done, I think you have set a new record for the most ill-informed rant ever to appear on this forum!0 -
P.s for those (like scottfrasernz...) who have no idea as to what the UCI 'rulebook' actually contains, this is the relevant section...
1.2.079 All licence holders shall at all times be properly dressed and behave correctly in all circumstances, even when not racing.
They shall refrain from any acts of violence, threats or insults or any other improper behaviour or from putting other persons in danger.
They may not in word, gesture, writing or otherwise harm the reputation or question the honour of other licence holders, officials, sponsors, federations, the UCI or cycling in general. The right of criticism shall be exercised in a motivated and reasonable manner and with moderation.
http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarge ... E&id=340330 -
aurelio wrote:
Would that be the same Richard Virenque who was voted the second least admirable person in France after the right-wing politician, Le Pen? Who was endlessly mocked on French TV in the 'Les Guignols de l'info' program and whose phrase about doping 'without knowledge of his own free will' has become a popular French idiom meaning hypocritical denial?scottfrasernz wrote:...Meanwhile who's that enjoying a privileged position at the Tour unveiling, commentating and welcome in the Tour VIP suite? It isn't that lying cheating convicted doper Richard Virenque is it? It is! Well I'll be! He's great for the Tour isn't he. Still so popular in France...
He won their version of "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Here" a couple of years ago. So yes, he is still very popular.Twitter: @RichN950 -
So the Tour say Boonen will damage the image of the tour, while a proven cheat is allowed to speak to millions of listeners? :?0
-
I think he should ride. Yes, it's a crime and he's not coming out of it looking too good, but I think ASO are outside of their remit in passing this sort of moral judgment. The UCI haven't seen fit to ban him and the Police can take care of the criminal side of it and I think that should be the end of it, especially in light of some of the other people who'll be there as others have mentioned.0
-
Following that reasoning, the most popular people in Britain include Tony Blackburn, Christopher Biggins and Carol Thatcher... :roll:RichN95 wrote:He won their version of "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Here" a couple of years ago. So yes, he is still very popular.
The fact that the sort of people who watch these shows enjoy seeing a load of arses make idiots of themselves on TV is not a good yardstick of how widely admired or popular those people are across the nation as a whole.0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:pauln99 wrote:The rich that take coke are doing so within their means. When poor people take crack cocaine they typically end up having to turn to crime and it's for this reason that they are 'demonised'.
P
So its ok to break the law if you're rich by that rationale...you're just enforcing what I'm saying about the hypocrisy of attitudes to drugs.
Really? I think you'll find the point is if you don't need to steal to feed your habit your unlikely to be demonised. And for the record I think the treatment of drug addicts in this country is largely scandalous.0 -
One, Virenque is not employed by the ASO.Tempestas wrote:So the Tour say Boonen will damage the image of the tour, while a proven cheat is allowed to speak to millions of listeners? :?
Secondly, what do you want, life bans for those associated with doping from not only riding but also having any connection with the sport whatsoever? Perhaps you think that there should be ‘no way back’ and that the ASO should have refused to let Astana ride this year as well?
Also, let's not forget that the ASO fought to keep Virenque out of the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal, even though he had not been convicted of any doping offence, with Leblanc saying "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".
Doubtless, once justice has been seen to be done and he has been sanctioned for his offences, Boonen will we welcomed back into the Tour again. Allowing him to ride when he has the UCI's disciplinary hearing hanging over him would be joke, giving the message that the sort of image that the Tour would like to project can accommodate irresponsible, reckless driving idiots who have a serious coke habit.0 -
Croxted AvengerSo its ok to break the law if you're rich by that rationale...you're just enforcing what I'm saying about the hypocrisy of attitudes to drugs.
D'oh. Can you not see a not-so-subtle difference between the two crimes?
(clue - it's about the affect your crime has on others)0 -
aurelio wrote:
Following that reasoning, the most popular people in Britain include Tony Blackburn, Christopher Biggins and Carol Thatcher... :roll:RichN95 wrote:He won their version of "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Here" a couple of years ago. So yes, he is still very popular.
The fact that the sort of people who watch these shows enjoy seeing a load of arses make idiots of themselves on TV is not a good yardstick of how widely admired or popular those people are across the nation as a whole.
And by your rationale the second most hated man in the world is Colin Charvis, as a poll in Wales on Sunday once said so (he's actually well liked in Wales).Twitter: @RichN950 -
aurelio wrote:1.2.079 All licence holders shall at all times be properly dressed and behave correctly in all circumstances, even when not racing.
They shall refrain from any acts of violence, threats or insults or any other improper behaviour or from putting other persons in danger.
They may not in word, gesture, writing or otherwise harm the reputation or question the honour of other licence holders, officials, sponsors, federations, the UCI or cycling in general. The right of criticism shall be exercised in a motivated and reasonable manner and with moderation.
http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarge ... E&id=34033
Are you a UCI licence holder Aurelio?
If so you better hand yourself in for questioning the honour of other licence holders, as this isn't allowed and neither is improper dressing. What are you wearing?
I think a life ban would be appropriate don't you?
Once again can common sense prevail here - this is just a catch-all rule that allows the UCI to get rid of creeps if necessary e.g. those who exhibit racist or abusive behaviour, or who deliberately try to damage the reputation of the sport. All organisations have similar rules, whether it be business, sport, government, charities or whatever.
I think this is being interpreted way too literally, as a deliberate exploitation by those who stand to gain from the publicity Boonen's name brings.
As I explained in my first post, that's my point of view. As I said already, it was handled as a criminal matter by the proper authorities and that should be the end of it.
As the UCI rule you quote makes clear, any criticism of an athlete under this rule should be moderate, reasonable and have a justifiable motivation.
What's the motivation to exclude Boonen from the Tour?
Only the ASO has one in my view, which is frankly opportunistic as I explained earlier, and that is why I believe this situation is unjust and should be sorted out by the UCI forthwith.
Cheers
Scott0 -
The changing image of the Tour...
1934: 'The sacrifice of René Vietto'
and 2009 (If some on here had their way)...
0 -
-
pauln99 wrote:Croxted AvengerSo its ok to break the law if you're rich by that rationale...you're just enforcing what I'm saying about the hypocrisy of attitudes to drugs.
D'oh. Can you not see a not-so-subtle difference between the two crimes?
(clue - it's about the affect your crime has on others)
Theres is a two tier judicial system for poor peoples cocaine and rich peoples cociane. I'm saying it and you're agreeing with me. You obviously think this is ok as you think rich people don't cost society through their habit / addiction - a myth btw. I don't think this is ok, I think its hypocritical. That is the difference between us.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
Personally, I think that the UCI's '1-6 months' policy is fair.scottfrasernz wrote:I think a life ban would be appropriate don't you?
If that were the case surely they would benefit more from 'the publicity Boonen's name brings' by letting him ride.scottfrasernz wrote:I think this is being interpreted way too literally, as a deliberate exploitation by those who stand to gain from the publicity Boonen's name brings.
Once again you are wrong. That rule refers to the criticism of the UCI by riders and officials...scottfrasernz wrote:As the UCI rule you quote makes clear, any criticism of an athlete under this rule should be moderate, reasonable and have a justifiable motivation.
What, you mean just before they impose a 1-6 month ban on him for 'bringing the sport into disrepute'? :roll:scottfrasernz wrote:I believe this situation is unjust and should be sorted out by the UCI forthwith.0 -
The problem with the situation is that he's a big player. For the tour it's a lose/lose situation. If they let him in and he performs badly in the tour, then it leads to boring racing during the flat stages. If he performs well, then no doubt his cocaine use would be in the headlines.
Don't let him in on the other hand, and we face the possibility of some dull sprints.
At the end of the day, whilst many of us forumites might believe the distinction between recreational and performance enhancing drugs is an important one, the general public don't make such a distinction, or at least don't see it as important. Furthermore, the guys been caught with his nose in the trough THREE times now! He needs to realise that he can't continue to use drugs if he wants to continue his career as a pro cyclist.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
the UCI 'rulebook' actually contains,
2.2.010 Exclusion from races
Special provisions applicable to road events in the historic class
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an
event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the
image or reputation of the organiser or of the event.
If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the
decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an
appropriate period. However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute
shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration
Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris
Cédex 13).interview.cyclingfever.com0 -
Jez mon wrote:The problem with the situation is that he's a big player. For the tour it's a lose/lose situation. If they let him in and he performs badly in the tour, then it leads to boring racing during the flat stages. If he performs well, then no doubt his cocaine use would be in the headlines.
Don't let him in on the other hand, and we face the possibility of some dull sprints.
At the end of the day, whilst many of us forumites might believe the distinction between recreational and performance enhancing drugs is an important one, the general public don't make such a distinction, or at least don't see it as important. Furthermore, the guys been caught with his nose in the trough THREE times now! He needs to realise that he can't continue to use drugs if he wants to continue his career as a pro cyclist.
FINALLY Jez Mon... someone actually looking at it for what it is!! Its simply the fact that Boonen has behaved like a complete a.r.s.e. he knew very well what would happen and yet he did it all over again!!
I'm sure the ASO would rather he was in their tour up against Cav, it would make for a real spectacle. But what do u all really expect them to do? After banning him last year, and then saying, ah its ok Tommy, you 'line' up on the grid no problems.
I honestly can not see how anyone can defend him and say he should ride. I've got no problems with the fact he likes a cheeky one, i've got a problem with his attitude to it all. Why should he get away with being so stupid. I stuck up for him last year, but not this..
Also you gotta stop comparing the situation to anything else. It is what it is and should be judged so.0 -
Quite right. If he wants to be both idolised as a professional sportsman, supposedly setting an example for young people to follow, and be a reckless-driving cokehead as well, he should take up football where such behaviour appears to be regarded as being quite normal.Jez mon wrote:...the guys been caught with his nose in the trough THREE times now! He needs to realise that he can't continue to use drugs if he wants to continue his career as a pro cyclist.
In the great scheme of things being excluded from the Tour is no big deal in any case. In the USA 3 drug busts can see you being jailed for life.0 -
The ASO have already said that Boonen and his team can challenge this decision before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport, so they are playing by the rules.lucybears wrote:...in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber] (Maison du sport français, 1 avenue Pierre de Coubertin, 75640 Paris Cédex 13).
http://www.lemonde.fr/sports/article/20 ... _3242.html0 -
aurelio wrote:
One, Virenque is not employed by the ASO.Tempestas wrote:So the Tour say Boonen will damage the image of the tour, while a proven cheat is allowed to speak to millions of listeners? :?
Secondly, what do you want, life bans for those associated with doping from not only riding but also having any connection with the sport whatsoever? Perhaps you think that there should be ‘no way back’ and that the ASO should have refused to let Astana ride this year as well?
Also, let's not forget that the ASO fought to keep Virenque out of the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal, even though he had not been convicted of any doping offence, with Leblanc saying "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".
Doubtless, once justice has been seen to be done and he has been sanctioned for his offences, Boonen will we welcomed back into the Tour again. Allowing him to ride when he has the UCI's disciplinary hearing hanging over him would be joke, giving the message that the sort of image that the Tour would like to project can accommodate irresponsible, reckless driving idiots who have a serious coke habit.
Missed my point, the Tour organisers have stopped a rider from competing due to his association with drugs and how it can damage their image, but they will let a proven cheat commentate on the Tour. It's hypocritical, especially since Boonen did not actually 'take' coke the 2nd time, it was only found in his hair, not a serious coke habit, more a crap barber 0
