Boonen excluded...thoughts?
Comments
-
The UCI should of suspended Tom's licence the day news broke that he'd been using again and got him into some rehab. Then we wouldn't have this will he won't ride the tour.
Just out of intrest the attitude to coke on here seens quite relaxed. I have't tried it (Don't think I cold afford it).
But if you were about to jump into a taxi and clocked the driver just finishing snorting a line, would you still get in the taxi?0 -
If I was in a hurry then definitely.
0 -
aurelio wrote:
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.html
note that while the Court of Arbitration for Sport 'must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period', no such condition is placed on the Chambre Arbitrale du Sportinterview.cyclingfever.com0 -
No, you are the one missing the point. The ASO does not employ Virenque, nor do they in any way 'let' him commentate on the Tour as it is entirely out of their hands.Tempestas wrote: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.
Do you really think that the ASO can tell Eurosport, or any French TV channel, who is allowed to commentate on the race on one of their own programs? Do you think that they somehow 'let' Kelly commentate on Eurosport as well, and that this is also wrong and evidence of 'hypocrisy' given the revelations about Kelly in Voet's book? (The same one that fingered Virenque).
To be fair, I think that the French public, whilst they may have despised Virenque for sullying the Tour and his pathetic denials, now see him more sympathetically. This is mainly because they have come to realise just how dope-fuelled pro bike racing is and how all his rivals were up to the same game. Now their indifference is directed at pro bike racing itself with one survey finding that 90% of the French public agreed with the sentence 'Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed' and 85% agreed with the phrase 'Because of doping, I no longer believe in the results of the Tour de France'. Of those who still watch the Tour the biggest group - 22% - said that they did so primarily to watch the scenery...0 -
Your point being? Do you think that the UCI has the power to place conditions on the way the legal systems of the French state operate?lucybears wrote:note that while the Court of Arbitration for Sport 'must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period', no such condition is placed on the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport0 -
aurelio wrote: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.
How do you know that kind of behaviour is not the norm for cyclists? I've certainly heard tales of cyclists doing loads of ching at parties. Many of them appear to drive recklessly too (back in Coppi's day he actually killed someone with his dangerous driving)Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Good point. And my print of Coppi on the Tourmalet will shortly be be coming down off the wall.iainf72 wrote:How do you know that kind of behaviour is not the norm for cyclists? I've certainly heard tales of cyclists doing loads of ching at parties. Many of them appear to drive recklessly too (back in Coppi's day he actually killed someone with his dangerous driving)
0 -
aurelio wrote:
Your point being? Do you think that the UCI has the power to place conditions on the way the legal systems of the French state operate?lucybears wrote:note that while the Court of Arbitration for Sport 'must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period', no such condition is placed on the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport
the French state - well, when the French sports minister has made it clear that Boonen is not welcome at Tour de France
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... /jun11news
then I suspect the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will give a ruling no earlier than July 5thinterview.cyclingfever.com0 -
Well said M. Laporte. That said it's a pity that Marie-George Buffet is no longer Minister for sport. Word is that the Festina bust came about largely because of the work of Buffet when she was the French Sports minister. As a member of the French Communist Party Buffet had no interest in protecting the interests of big business and was determined to tackle the issue of doping in big-money sport. She brought in a raft of anti-doping legislation, then with the help of 'inside information' targeted Festina and Voet.lucybears wrote:when the French sports minister has made it clear that Boonen is not welcome at Tour de France
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... /jun11news
then I suspect the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport will give a ruling no earlier than July 5th
Perhaps what is really needed is the 'nationalisation' of The Tour, with Patrice Clerc being put in overall charge under the direction of someone like Buffet. Won't happen under Sarko of course.0 -
aurelio wrote:
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.html
I think you're unwittingly making my point for me there Aurelio
Special rules for the Tour.... kings of their own realm aren't they.... judge jury and executioner of riders that are (at the time at least) free to ride according to the ACTUAL offical government of the sport (the UCI).
As I said before its my view they are exploiting Boonen for publicity and to posture themselves as the power players in the sport... the 'real bosses' of cycling as expressed by the 'most important' event that they run as a commercial enterprise for their own profit.
It's my view and I accept that your view differs.
On the topic of publicity though, I don't accept that including a big name rider would garner the same publicity as including the rider which would simply be the status quo.
My view is that they gain power by being allowed to take away the right of Boonen to participate in their event.
And they are using it to generate free publicity for their event and their organisation via the sports press. This maintains their leverage on the UCI and protects their 'special' status.
Its the ASO playing a clever game of populist politics and commercial greed as I see it under the guise of 'maintaining the image of the sport'.
If the UCI decides on a sanction for Boonen I'm happy with that, that is their role.
I would prefer to see the ASO focus on putting on a better event than the rather lacklustre and formulaic recent editions of the TdF and also, for any protectionism of the TdF to be removed ASAP. For me the status of the event should rely purely on it's own merits and not benefit from manipulation of individual riders or other events happening in the broader context of cycling.
Because the UCI is the regulator of cycling and not any single event organiser, especially one who has tried to establish/protect a monopoly position on what should be a free market for events that appeal to the riders, the viewing public and sponsors, whether those events occur in France, elsewhere in Europe, the USA, Australia or anywhere else for that matter.
Again, just my views, be interested to hear other's opinions though!
Scott0 -
Croxted AvengerTheres 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 might like to tell how how rich people taking cocaine has an affect on my life?
If it compares to being assaulted and robbed then I'll agree with you.
Otherwise there's a difference in scale which I appreciate and you don't. And that is the difference between us.
P0 -
Some very interesting points made here.
A quote from the late great Frank Zappa kind of captures my thoughts on this:
"A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an assh*le"
As previously pointed out, he is suppossed to be a professional sports person. That job comes with responsibility.
The fact that this sport has a significant problem with drug cheats and an even bigger percieved problem by others who don't follow cycling with any real interest - e.g. doping is the only aspect of pro cycling that my local paper covers - means that, IMO, his participation in the Tour should be the same as mine; watching it on the telly.0 -
Firstly, the ASO are not somehow operating outside of the remit of the UCI. The procedure they are following adhere to the rules as set out by the UCI. The rules which allow them to suspend a rider 'whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event' are the UCI's rules. Secondly, the ASO are not 'judge jury and executioner'. The actual judgment is made by the French Chambre Arbitrale du Sport. As to your 'special rules' comment, the only 'rule' that is operating here is that the UCI cannot dictate to the French Government how it should conducts its internal affairs. The ASO do not have a 'special' position, they and the UCI are bound to adhere to the law of the French state.scottfrasernz wrote:Special rules for the Tour.... kings of their own realm aren't they.... judge jury and executioner of riders that are (at the time at least) free to ride according to the ACTUAL official government of the sport (the UCI).
The situation of the ASO is weaker that of the individual federations who, whilst following the rules of the UCI, have the power to sanction riders. Do you believe that they are also 'kings of their own realm' and 'judge jury and executioner' and as such should have the powers they hold taken away from them? Your view would seem to advocate giving complete, totalitarian control to the like of McQuaid and Verbruggen! What a terrifying thought!
Your view ignores such important points such as the fact that the French Minister for Sport has said that he doesn't want Boonen in the Tour. Again it is not the ASO who are wielding the power.scottfrasernz wrote:As I said before its my view they are exploiting Boonen for publicity and to posture themselves as the power players in the sport...It's my view and I accept that your view differs.
You seem to believe that 'any publicity is good publicity', which is nonsense.scottfrasernz wrote:On the topic of publicity though, I don't accept that including a big name rider would garner the same publicity as including the rider which would simply be the status quo.
How exactly do they benefit financially from excluding Boonen? Who does this action make them popular with? It seems to me that they have taken a lot of flak over this decision and surely many Belgian fans will not be bothering to visit the Tour as a consequence?scottfrasernz wrote:Its the ASO playing a clever game of populist politics and commercial greed as I see it under the guise of 'maintaining the image of the sport'.
The only monopoly that anyone has tried to set up is that which the UCI tried to create around the 'Pro Tour brand', the aim of which was to attempt to grab a substantial part of the revenues from the TV rights for events such as the Tour.scottfrasernz wrote:the UCI is the regulator of cycling and not any single event organiser, especially one who has tried to establish/protect a monopoly position on what should be a free market for events that appeal to the riders
It seems that in your view, not only should the UCI be granted a monopoly over events they don't even organise, they should be allowed to dictate to Governments how they run their affairs! Both are well outside the proper remit of the UCI and they should stick to such matters as writing technical regulations rather than attempting to become an all-powerful commercial entity.0 -
aurelio
good posting. i misjudged you.
p0 -
He was banned last year,& no one was the least bit surprised.He's been banned this year (for the same disreputable behaviour).
What's the surprise?
The guy wants banning full stop,until he and/or his employer gets him some help,to stop him going down the same sorry road as Pantani.so many cols,so little time!0 -
aurelio wrote:[quote
Who was endlessly mocked on French TV in the 'Les Guignols de l'info'
You have lost the plot when you are using Spitting image as some sort of mocking barometer to make a point ...........ffs tell me a public figure who hasnt been mocked on that programme !Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
nick hanson wrote:He was banned last year,& no one was the least bit surprised.He's been banned this year (for the same disreputable behaviour).
What's the surprise?
The guy wants banning full stop,until he and/or his employer gets him some help,to stop him going down the same sorry road as Pantani.
No, we had the exact same debate last year (even including comparisons to Pantani).Twitter: @RichN950 -
How many other cyclists have been ridiculed on 'Les Guignols' the way Virenque has ...Moray Gub wrote:
You have lost the plot when you are using Spitting image as some sort of mocking barometer to make a point ...........ffs tell me a public figure who hasnt been mocked on that programme !aurelio wrote:[quote
Who was endlessly mocked on French TV in the 'Les Guignols de l'info'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMaa9Ui8JS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpcfVpBBEjg&NR=10 -
aurelio wrote:
How many other cyclists have been ridiculed on 'Les Guignols' the way Virenque has ...Moray Gub wrote:
You have lost the plot when you are using Spitting image as some sort of mocking barometer to make a point ...........ffs tell me a public figure who hasnt been mocked on that programme !aurelio wrote:[quote
Who was endlessly mocked on French TV in the 'Les Guignols de l'info'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMaa9Ui8JS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpcfVpBBEjg&NR=1
Irrelevant really ,its the fact you use a puppet show to make points on a persons popularity level. I mean ffs.............lolGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
aurelio wrote:
Perhaps what is really needed is the 'nationalisation' of The Tour, with Patrice Clerc being put in overall charge under the direction of someone like Buffet. Won't happen under Sarko of course.
When does nationalisation of anything work?
Why would they do any better a job? After all, French athletes still dope a lot, don't they? If dopage didn't damage ASO's commercial interests they wouldn't care. And that the stick you can use to sort it out, not some kind of moral stance.
[At first I thought you meant Warren Buffet should've been put in charge, but then I realised you've probably got a Warren Buffet dart board ] Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
There is a difference between been 'popular' and being a 'popular laughingstock'...Moray Gub wrote:Irrelevant really ,its the fact you use a puppet show to make points on a persons popularity level.0 -
aurelio wrote:
No, you are the one missing the point. The ASO does not employ Virenque, nor do they in any way 'let' him commentate on the Tour as it is entirely out of their hands.Tempestas wrote: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.
Do you really think that the ASO can tell Eurosport, or any French TV channel, who is allowed to commentate on the race on one of their own programs? Do you think that they somehow 'let' Kelly commentate on Eurosport as well, and that this is also wrong and evidence of 'hypocrisy' given the revelations about Kelly in Voet's book? (The same one that fingered Virenque).
To be fair, I think that the French public, whilst they may have despised Virenque for sullying the Tour and his pathetic denials, now see him more sympathetically. This is mainly because they have come to realise just how dope-fuelled pro bike racing is and how all his rivals were up to the same game. Now their indifference is directed at pro bike racing itself with one survey finding that 90% of the French public agreed with the sentence 'Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed' and 85% agreed with the phrase 'Because of doping, I no longer believe in the results of the Tour de France'. Of those who still watch the Tour the biggest group - 22% - said that they did so primarily to watch the scenery...
He has been invited to the launch, organisers send invites...if you don't want someone at your party...you don't invite them :roll:
Maybe they cannot control who commentates, but at the end of the day Virenque was a massive doper and cheat in sport, whereas Boonen got caught once for a recreational drug and the second time it was found in his hair...not his nose! I am no fan of any sort of drugs, but I think they have got this wrong. I was looking forward to Cavendish kicking his arse as well0 -
The nationalised French healthcare system has been rated the best in the world. The nationalised rail system in France also puts Britain's privatised joke to shame. On the other had just look at the world crisis the so-called 'free market' banking system has created.iainf72 wrote:When does nationalisation of anything work? 0 -
Some people are so unforgiving of others, no matter how many years pass and no matter how much they admit their errors. Personally I would be prepared to forgive even the likes of Landis and Armstrong if they at last came clean. At least Virenque eventually admited to his doping and served out his ban.Tempestas wrote:He has been invited to the launch, organisers send invites...if you don't want someone at your party...you don't invite them
Do you think that riders like David Millar, Basso and so on (and teams like Astana) should also be barred from ever appearing at the Tour again?
It's also interesting that you appear to be so convinced that Cavendish is clean. On what grounds I wonder?0 -
aurelio wrote:
The nationalised French healthcare system has been rated the best in the world. The nationalised rail system in France also puts Britain's privatised joke to shame. On the other had just look at the world crisis the so-called 'free market' banking system has created.iainf72 wrote:When does nationalisation of anything work?
I believe the Dutch health care system is now considered the best and is basically "private".
So, when BR ran the trains here it was a brilliant nirvana?
All I'm saying here is we need to end this myth that France does a better job in terms of anti-doping than other nations. They don't.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Do you think the view that doping is less widespread in the French-based teams is also a 'myth'?iainf72 wrote:All I'm saying here is we need to end this myth that France does a better job in terms of anti-doping than other nations. They don't.0 -
I'm not into Doping Debates as they seem so repetitious but your question deserves an answer I suppose.aurelio wrote:It's also interesting that you appear to be so convinced that Cavendish is clean. On what grounds I wonder?
"Dave Brailsford" invited you and and "ANYBODY" else to come along and check their Records on Performance Values and Histories of the Team GB.
His Word is good enough for me.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
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
:roll:
Maybe Mr.B shoulda thought of that before he started hammering his hooter with the columbian marching powder.
Hope it was good sheeit,cos it sure was expensive :shock:0 -
I wonder how much control Brailsford has over Cavendish's activities now that he is a Continental professional? Has Brailsford posted all his data online anywhere so that 'anybody' can access it easily?deejay wrote:"Dave Brailsford" invited you and and "ANYBODY" else to come along and check their Records on Performance Values and Histories of the Team GB. His Word is good enough for me.
OK, so he might well be clean, but given the prevelence of doping in pro cycling, how can anyone really be sure? It's sad to have to say that, but it only reflects the state of the 'sport'.0 -
In much of the USA three drug busts are 'worth' a life jail sentence.shakey88 wrote:'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
Quite so, those who think that cocaine use does not affect others might also like to read up on the impact of the Columbian drug wars, not only in Columbia but also neighbouring countries like Panama.shakey88 wrote:Maybe Mr.B shoulda thought of that before he started hammering his hooter with the columbian marching powder.
Wider Drug War Threatens Colombian Indians
New York Times
21 April 2009.
NUNCIDO, Colombia - Up and down the rivers of western Colombia, a new breed of criminal armies is pressing deeper into this isolated jungle, fighting with guerrillas for control of the cocaine trade and forcing thousands of Indians to flee.
It is the kind of nightmarish ordeal that is an all-too-common feature of Colombia’s long war: peasants being terrorized by gunmen seeking dominance in the backlands.
But as Colombia’s war for control of the drug trade intensifies in frontiers like this one, with new combatants vying for smuggling routes and coca-growing areas where Indians eke out a meager existence, it is adding to the already grave toll on the nation’s indigenous groups. At least 27 of the groups are at risk of being eliminated because of the country’s four-decade conflict, according to the United Nations, and human rights organizations worry that the new violence is pushing even deeper into the Indians’ ancient lands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/world ... .html?_r=10
