The Shack only doing 2 GT's next year

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited November 2009 in Pro race
Likely to be the Tour and the Vuelta.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
«1

Comments

  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    So, we have gone from: "I would love to ride the Giro, as it's good prep." to a total no show?
    Love these PT licences. very useful. CONI-itis?
    USPS lives again!
    Still, at their age, better to take it easy.
    Bbbbaaaarrrrr... :lol:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • wasp707
    wasp707 Posts: 116
    Assuming of course that they get an invite to Le tour.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    At least Lane won't be at the Giro complaining that the route is too dangerous to race because he needs an unofficial rest day :lol:
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • spanielsson
    spanielsson Posts: 776
    I'm sure Radio Shack would happier for their sponsored team to be in Italy when they could be racing in California?!!!

    Both High Road & The Shack will focus on The Tour of California this time more so than the Giro.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    I'm not sure Cav will be happy with a couple of Cali stages for his palmares and points, when there's a half a dozen Giro stages on offer.

    If Shack sweep the Cali podium, that would make a bit of a farce out of the race.

    Kind of Ironic, if BMC ends up being the US's major contributor to the best race of the year.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I'm of the opinon that if the Shack don't want to do the Giro, then that's fine and it opens the door to a team who want to be there.

    Mind you, you could probably assemble a good team around cheque-book Klodi and ride high in the overall.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Good, we can enjoy the Giro's greatness without the Lance show.

    I wish Contador was doing both.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    So, we have gone from: "I would love to ride the Giro, as it's good prep." to a total no show?
    Love these PT licences. very useful. CONI-itis?
    USPS lives again!
    Still, at their age, better to take it easy.
    Bbbbaaaarrrrr... :lol:

    But iirc you one of the ones complaining about too much publicity from a certain individual and team at last years Giro, well now you it seems have got your wish and you still aint happy about it ! A Pro Tour/Continental team doing two GTs is hardly new is it ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • GroupOfOne MkII
    GroupOfOne MkII Posts: 1,289
    iainf72 wrote:
    I'm of the opinon that if the Shack don't want to do the Giro, then that's fine and it opens the door to a team who want to be there.

    Indeed. I'd far rather we got back to the days of teams only riding the GTs where they had a genuine interest or ability to perform. Personally I'd rather see a few 'lesser' Italian teams who go for it then some ProTour teams just going through the motions cos Pat says they have to be there.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    Very true. Better for all concerned. Go Ceramica Flaminia! no doubt....
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    must be cause Lance is scared to dope in Italy...surely?? couldn't be anything innocent like setting priorities for his team e.g. strongest team as Cali
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    Wouldn't financial considerations be the most logical conclusion?
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    So, not CONI-itis after all then?
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    wasp707 wrote:
    Assuming of course that they get an invite to Le tour.

    Actually, they don't need one. The UCI's agreement with ASO, RCS, and the Vuelta's owners is that there are 18 spots guaranteed for Pro Tour license holders. So they're in.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    donrhummy wrote:
    Actually, they don't need one. The UCI's agreement with ASO, RCS, and the Vuelta's owners is that there are 18 spots guaranteed for Pro Tour license holders. So they're in.

    Wrong. If you held a PT licence in September 08 you're in, if not, then you need an invite. So that would be (despite some not being PT anymore)

    AG2R La Mondiale
    Astana
    Bbox Bouygues Telecom
    Caisse d'Epargne
    Cofidis
    Columbia
    Euskaltel
    Francaise des Jeux
    Footon Servetto (formerly Fuji)
    Lampre
    Liquigas
    Milram
    Quick Step
    Rabobank
    Saxo Bank
    Silence-Lotto
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    DaveyL wrote:
    So, not CONI-itis after all then?
    I is just a tease. thought you knew that.
    iainf72 wrote:
    Wrong. If you held a PT licence in September 08 you're in, if not, then you need an invite. So that would be (despite some not being PT anymore)

    AG2R La Mondiale
    Astana
    Bbox Bouygues Telecom
    Caisse d'Epargne
    Cofidis
    Columbia
    Euskaltel
    Francaise des Jeux
    Footon Servetto (formerly Fuji)
    Lampre
    Liquigas
    Milram
    Quick Step
    Rabobank
    Saxo Bank
    Silence-Lotto

    Gets a bit crowded, by adding Sky, Shack, Skil, Vacansoleil, BMC and Cervelo to that list.
    If Footon don't continue to throw up positives...... :oops:

    Better all play nice with the frenchies. :)
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • wicked
    wicked Posts: 844
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Good, we can enjoy the Giro's greatness without the Lance show.

    I wish Contador was doing both.

    +1
    A good point, well made!
    It’s the most beautiful sport in the world but it’s governed by ***ts who have turned it into a crock of ****.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    DaveyL wrote:
    So, not CONI-itis after all then?
    I is just a tease. thought you knew that.

    Lightweight. :D
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    Certainly won't miss the Lance arse-cam.

    But, haven't you heard, they are doing 3 GTs - Stapleton claims the ToC is a Grand Tour - biggest laugh I've had all day
  • intothe12
    intothe12 Posts: 190
    the giro were probably not going to pony up €2m to livestrong.org aka lance's back pocket after seeing what he did last year in Milan.
    I doubt that lance will ride the Vuelta though....too many spainards would love to take him down seeing the sh*t he pulled with bertie.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Loving the revisionism going on here about the Milan stage. Like it was Lance and only Lance....
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • intothe12
    intothe12 Posts: 190
    it is widely accepted that he was the one that instigated the whispering campaign to get the stage neutralised. there were a few more powerfully voices in the bunch, but if LA had of said "ok boys lets race", you can be fairly sure it would have been game on.
  • altyteacher
    altyteacher Posts: 53
    "the giro were probably not going to pony up €2m to livestrong.org aka lance's back pocket after seeing what he did last year in Milan"

    Out of order!
    I am aware that the publicity and good will that running livestrong bestows upon Lance, and that he therefore benefits in some way, BUT to claim as this post does that the livestrong money goes into Lance's pocket is brutal and just plain wrong.
    If I can feel the pain in my arse, I mustn't be hurting my legs enough.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    altyteacher wrote:

    Out of order!
    I am aware that the publicity and good will that running livestrong bestows upon Lance, and that he therefore benefits in some way, BUT to claim as this post does that the livestrong money goes into Lance's pocket is brutal and just plain wrong.

    Quite right. They never said the fee's went to Livestrong - He trousered it yes, but didn't pretend it was going to charity.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • intothe12
    intothe12 Posts: 190
    actually meant to say livestrong.com (the similarly titled but for profit lance organisation) and not the charity livestrong.org.

    easy to make the mistake. (I'm sure thousands of people have done it and bought loads of stuff from the site thinking they were helping a good cause)
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    intothe12 wrote:
    it is widely accepted that he was the one that instigated the whispering campaign to get the stage neutralised. there were a few more powerfully voices in the bunch, but if LA had of said "ok boys lets race", you can be fairly sure it would have been game on.

    Its widely accepted by whom ...........internet forum people ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    intothe12 wrote:
    actually meant to say livestrong.com (the similarly titled but for profit lance organisation) and not the charity livestrong.org.

    easy to make the mistake. (I'm sure thousands of people have done it and bought loads of stuff from the site thinking they were helping a good cause)

    Is that true?? Can you buy stuff off .com and .org and one's (probably to some % which might be questionable) for charity where the other is profit?? If so, then that is absolutely disgusting that his charity bears the same name... makes me feel sick the thought of that. Can't be true surely?

    ...i suppose some of the products elsewhere are branded Livestrong and are pretty much totally profit making anyway... the crossover line is definitely very questionable.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    mfin wrote:

    Is that true?? Can you buy stuff off .com and .org and one's (probably to some % which might be questionable) for charity where the other is profit?? If so, then that is absolutely disgusting that his charity bears the same name... makes me feel sick the thought of that. Can't be true surely?

    That is indeed true.

    .com is a money makin business. .org is the charity.

    According to David Walsh, it's not uncommon in the US.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • intothe12
    intothe12 Posts: 190
    article in velocity nation - with david walsh

    http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... avid-walsh

    you need to read a bit to get the livestrong stuff, but here is the excerpt
    And there are some interesting points that have come up in that. I don't understand how you could have the LAF foundation, and then livestrong.org, both non-profit organizations, and they build up a tremendous following, and people believe and associate with the Livestrong brand. And then you get the creation of livestrong.com, which is a for profit organization. I don't understand how not for profit becomes for profit under the same brand. People tell me it happens in lots of charities in the US, and I'm sure it happens elsewhere as well, but I don't understand it.

    My feeling is that if somebody goes to their computer and types in www.livestrong.com, they think they're on a charity website. And there is nothing when you type that in that says pretty clearly to them from the first moment they're there, this is a for profit operation. They aren't told that, and to me that's strange. And livestrong.com is obviously owned by a very big multimedia company, Demand Media, it's worth a lot of money, we're talking billions here. And Lance is an equity holder in that company. So I think...cancer has served in many ways, and he has served the cancer community in many ways, but it's been a mutally beneficial relationship.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    iainf72 wrote:
    mfin wrote:

    Is that true?? Can you buy stuff off .com and .org and one's (probably to some % which might be questionable) for charity where the other is profit?? If so, then that is absolutely disgusting that his charity bears the same name... makes me feel sick the thought of that. Can't be true surely?

    That is indeed true.

    .com is a money makin business. .org is the charity.

    According to David Walsh, it's not uncommon in the US.

    Well, I suppose Ive never thought about it but i believe 100% that loads of people see livestrong products as part of cancer support and that Lance is profitting from Cancer on the basis of this. The bloke is a sh1t. Just that he's now 10 times the total sh1t I thought he was in the first place.

Categories