Astana: le merde hits the fan

DaveyL

Jez mon wrote:

So long as I can retain a "healthy" suspicion that the UCI will do whatever they can to prevent Lance's name from being tarnished.

And they've done a brilliant job of that so far, eh?

jp1985

NervexProf wrote:

Langman wrote:

So if Astana had nothing to hide why didn't they let the UCI know that had transfusion kits.....

Transfusion, Infusion, TUE's - I confess to being both lost,confused, if not wholly out of date..

I would like to hear from members, in simple language what the terms, mentioned in my first paragraph mean? - anyone?

Until then I retain a 'healthy' suspicion that the governing bodies, or is it the media? - who are seeking to bring down the successful?

Transfusion = Introduction of blood or components of blood e.g. red blood cells into a vein or artery

Infusion = Introduction of a substance e.g. fluid, electrolyte, drug into a vein or artery

Perfusion = same as infusion

TUE = Therapeutic Use Exemption - where permission is granted for an athlete to use a banned substance to treat a medical condition

Jez mon

DaveyL wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

So long as I can retain a "healthy" suspicion that the UCI will do whatever they can to prevent Lance's name from being tarnished.

And they've done a brilliant job of that so far, eh?

OK maybe I should have phrased it better. A healthy suspicion, that in this case, and some others, the UCI try to do what they feel is best for the sport, which (i feel) in some cases, means they do not pursue the drugs issue as hard as they could. So although Lance's name isn't white as snow, his name hasn't been tarnished in the way that an official UCI investigation would have made it.

dave_1

Moray Gub wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

tri-sexual, unfortunately your whole argument has very little substance in this case.

If it can be demonstrated that this medical waste belongs to Astana - where there is no 'legal' justification in France for their use in sport - it's not about what's in the bags, its the use of the bags themselves that's the problem - compounded by the fact that there are trace elements of other substances in there, and potential DNA evidence then the whole lot is appearing to create an almighty stench.

they will have to find something as they'll look silly if they find nothing...also, what really are the rules on drips and stuff...and what are the WADA rules? i admit I don't know...if you do, tell us? if you know what kit they found and what rule it broke, tell us

I suspect nobody really knows do they, there are posters in here who think they do and like to make themselves look like they know whats going on but the reality is they know the square root of diddly squat.

Exactly MG...they see gaps in the information, the leaked news present partial amounts of the story. What dissapoints most about some our our regulars above is the sheer delight that they show at a new doping story. It's easy to see they have never been in the position of trying to break through as a cyclist, get the attention of big pro team as they'd see how bad it is when sponsors and employment vanish.

top_bhoy

Dave_1 wrote:

Exactly MG...they see gaps in the information, the leaked news present partial amounts of the story. What dissapoints most about some our our regulars above is the sheer delight that they show at a new doping story. It's easy to see they have never been in the position of trying to break through as a cyclist, get the attention of big pro team as they'd see how bad it is when sponsors and employment vanish.

....and in which way does that justify doping and cheating a similar cyclist who makes the concious decision not to use PEDs? I see it as the honest cycist being hard done by and whose career will be probably curtailed - not the one who cheats.

Those who support or in some way excuse doping is one reason why the sport is constantly in the mire. My sympathies are wholly with the young cyclists who don't want to dope and there never seems a lot said about them on these pages. How much harder for them to come through the system..

Jez mon

Which is an admirable pursuit, but if there are no teams for which the young rider can ride for, it's a bit of a moot point.

top_bhoy

Jez mon wrote:

Which is an admirable pursuit, but if there are no teams for which the young rider can ride for, it's a bit of a moot point.

A moot point I don't think it is but its not an ideal that should be abandoned simply to keep a few cheats competing and certainly not one to be accepted.

Monty Dog

The debate on cyclingnews.com is a bit more lively, including:
The 'French' conspiracy theory - bless 'em, cos after the conviction of Amanda Knox in Italy, Europeans can't be trusted with DNA evidence (we only invented it)
Might be down to one of Bertie's mates 'misplacing' the waste against team instructions - it was only 4 days from the end of the Tour by which the 'rift' was pretty apparent
The Khazakhs getting in on LA and the Hog for doing the dirty with the Shack.
It was 'official' waste but somehow those nasty, sneaky Gendarmes got their conniving mitts on it..

Gotta love a conspiracy theory, particularly when it's good at discrediting the facts.

dave_1

Monty Dog wrote:

The debate on cyclingnews.com is a bit more lively, including:
The 'French' conspiracy theory - bless 'em, cos after the conviction of Amanda Knox in Italy, Europeans can't be trusted with DNA evidence (we only invented it)
Might be down to one of Bertie's mates 'misplacing' the waste against team instructions - it was only 4 days from the end of the Tour by which the 'rift' was pretty apparent
The Khazakhs getting in on LA and the Hog for doing the dirty with the Shack.
It was 'official' waste but somehow those nasty, sneaky Gendarmes got their conniving mitts on it..

Gotta love a conspiracy theory, particularly when it's good at discrediting the facts.

what we and any cycling fan who cares is gotta love sir is ...big increases in exposure for cycling...means more sponsors, more jobs...what is it about this fact you so dislike?

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/cycli ... ures-surge

afx237vi

Dave_1 wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

The debate on cyclingnews.com is a bit more lively, including:
The 'French' conspiracy theory - bless 'em, cos after the conviction of Amanda Knox in Italy, Europeans can't be trusted with DNA evidence (we only invented it)
Might be down to one of Bertie's mates 'misplacing' the waste against team instructions - it was only 4 days from the end of the Tour by which the 'rift' was pretty apparent
The Khazakhs getting in on LA and the Hog for doing the dirty with the Shack.
It was 'official' waste but somehow those nasty, sneaky Gendarmes got their conniving mitts on it..

Gotta love a conspiracy theory, particularly when it's good at discrediting the facts.

what we and any cycling fan who cares is gotta love sir is ...big increases in exposure for cycling...means more sponsors, more jobs...what is it about this fact you so dislike?

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/cycli ... ures-surge

Nice straw man. May as well have gone the whole hog (no pun intended) and thrown in the anti-American argument while you're at it.

dave_1

afx237vi wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

The debate on cyclingnews.com is a bit more lively, including:
The 'French' conspiracy theory - bless 'em, cos after the conviction of Amanda Knox in Italy, Europeans can't be trusted with DNA evidence (we only invented it)
Might be down to one of Bertie's mates 'misplacing' the waste against team instructions - it was only 4 days from the end of the Tour by which the 'rift' was pretty apparent
The Khazakhs getting in on LA and the Hog for doing the dirty with the Shack.
It was 'official' waste but somehow those nasty, sneaky Gendarmes got their conniving mitts on it..

Gotta love a conspiracy theory, particularly when it's good at discrediting the facts.

what we and any cycling fan who cares is gotta love sir is ...big increases in exposure for cycling...means more sponsors, more jobs...what is it about this fact you so dislike?

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/cycli ... ures-surge

Nice straw man. May as well have gone the whole hog (no pun intended) and thrown in the anti-American argument while you're at it.

why don't you answer the question for him? What do you so dislike about the big increases in exposure LA has brought in 2009? Simple question...answer it pls.

afx237vi

Dave_1 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

what we and any cycling fan who cares is gotta love sir is ...big increases in exposure for cycling...means more sponsors, more jobs...what is it about this fact you so dislike?

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/cycli ... ures-surge

Nice straw man. May as well have gone the whole hog (no pun intended) and thrown in the anti-American argument while you're at it.

why don't you answer the question for him? What do you so dislike about the big increases in exposure LA has brought in 2009? Simple question...answer it pls.

Why did you ask it in the first place when it's completely irrelevant to what Monty Dog wrote?

Personally I don't care one way or another if he brought more exposure to the sport, it makes no difference to the way I watch.

I fail to see what your point is, though. Are you suggesting that because he brings sponsorship money to the sport, the authorities should turn a blind eye if they find anything suspicious?

dave_1

afx237vi wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

what we and any cycling fan who cares is gotta love sir is ...big increases in exposure for cycling...means more sponsors, more jobs...what is it about this fact you so dislike?

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/cycli ... ures-surge

Nice straw man. May as well have gone the whole hog (no pun intended) and thrown in the anti-American argument while you're at it.

why don't you answer the question for him? What do you so dislike about the big increases in exposure LA has brought in 2009? Simple question...answer it pls.

Why did you ask it in the first place when it's completely irrelevant to what Monty Dog wrote?

Personally I don't care one way or another if he brought more exposure to the sport, it makes no difference to the way I watch.

I fail to see what your point is, though. Are you suggesting that because he brings sponsorship money to the sport, the authorities should turn a blind eye if they find anything suspicious?

This is a leaked story, could be TUEs, could be multi use equipment not used for transfusions-all speculation at the moment.....let's no be prejudicial....could be good reasons for certain stuff being in the trash.

Re your comment that you don't care about arguably large increases in viewing audiences in 2009 brought by LA, one thing to consider... potential sponsors look at that before considering investment. Sponsors surely want guarantees on airtime, on viewing audience seeing their logos, so how can you say you don't care about it? Riders want sponsors...they want places on teams...you don't care about that?

moray_gub

afx237vi wrote:

[

Personally I don't care one way or another if he brought more exposure to the sport, it makes no difference to the way I watch.

But if this extra exposure brought about extra TV viewing opportunities then it does make a difference to what you watch.

afx237vi

Dave_1 wrote:

This is a leaked story, could be TUEs, could be multi use equipment not used for transfusions-all speculation at the moment.....let's no be prejudicial....could be good reasons for certain stuff being in the trash.

So? It should be investigated just like any other infraction of the rules, no?

Dave_1 wrote:

Re your comment that you don't care about arguably large increases in viewing audiences in 2009 brought by LA, one thing to consider... potential sponsors look at that before considering investment. Sponsors surely want guarantees on airtime, on viewing audience seeing their logos, so how can you say you don't care about it? Riders want sponsors...they want places on teams...you don't care about that?

Cycling existed before LA came along, after he retired, and will still exist when he retires again. Maybe Angelo Zomegnan could tell us what kind of publicity Armstrong brought to the Giro last year.

afx237vi

Moray Gub wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

[

Personally I don't care one way or another if he brought more exposure to the sport, it makes no difference to the way I watch.

But if this extra exposure brought about extra TV viewing opportunities then it does make a difference to what you watch.

What races were on TV last year that I wasn't able to watch in previous years? There was less cycling on Eurosport last year - no Tour de Suisse, no Pais-Vaso, no Gent-Wevelgem. They probably blew the budget on "Planet Armstrong".

dave_1

afx237vi wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

This is a leaked story, could be TUEs, could be multi use equipment not used for transfusions-all speculation at the moment.....let's no be prejudicial....could be good reasons for certain stuff being in the trash.

So? It should be investigated just like any other infraction of the rules, no?

Dave_1 wrote:

Re your comment that you don't care about arguably large increases in viewing audiences in 2009 brought by LA, one thing to consider... potential sponsors look at that before considering investment. Sponsors surely want guarantees on airtime, on viewing audience seeing their logos, so how can you say you don't care about it? Riders want sponsors...they want places on teams...you don't care about that?

Cycling existed before LA came along, after he retired, and will still exist when he retires again. Maybe Angelo Zomegnan could tell us what kind of publicity Armstrong brought to the Giro last year.

what level of budget did teams have 20 years ago as compared to now, and rider salaries?...what was the level of investment in the sport then as compared to now? Did anyone care about cycling beyond western Europe? LA has grown the sport...no way should we be wishing for doping scandals that will poleaxe the sport...

Do you think large increases in viewing audience are good for the sport? Yes or no?

Zomegan is taking the Giro to USA if he can...wonder why?...because the time is ripe...LA has made cycling more recognised than anyone before.

moray_gub

afx237vi wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

[

Personally I don't care one way or another if he brought more exposure to the sport, it makes no difference to the way I watch.

But if this extra exposure brought about extra TV viewing opportunities then it does make a difference to what you watch.

What races were on TV last year that I wasn't able to watch in previous years? There was less cycling on Eurosport last year - no Tour de Suisse, no Pais-Vaso, no Gent-Wevelgem. They probably blew the budget on "Planet Armstrong".

None of those races were shown in season 2008 on Europsort prior to Armstrong's return so irrelevant to the discussion. As to your question Tour of Calif was live this year so even if thats all there was its still had an effect on your viewing.........no ?

Slapshot

the old argument rages.....what forums do is give the Fan Boys and the rest of us a chance to have a good rant without spilling blood, oops!!!

The Astana thing - They're as guilty as sin but you can bet McQuaid spent his christmas dinner thinking of ways to keep lance tarnish free ..... try duraglit polish, it works well on brass necks. it's lovely to think that the tactical genius Mr Armstrong and his best buddy and all round nice guy Johan have been outsmarted for a change, with any luck there will be enough to stir fry that pair for good. Last one out of the Shack turn out the lights.

What does Armstrong bring? more monotony, no attacking, no dynamism about the racing unless your his far superior team mate.... ASO, the UCI etc etc havbe made this sport about money and "he" is their golden goose. Never mind the cycling, it's all about Lance

Monty Dog

I find it bizarre that some people seem to imply these activities are justified because it's good for the sport? It's also apparent that the argument appears to be polarised between those who are fans of the sport of cycling and those who feel that the unsullied reputations of a few are best for the sport.

sylvanus

You all seem to be quietly ignoring the fact that Armstrong has on balance, not been good for sponsorship. When he retired in 2005, the Discovery team he owned quickly folded despite his close involvement because it couldn't find new sponsorship. It was widely believed to be less "careful" about an anti-drugs policy than some. Teams like High-Road / Columbia and Slipstream / Garmin found sponsors precisely because they were squeaky-clean on their drugs policy.

Surely Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich and many others have all shown that sponsors run a mile when there is a hint of scandal or drug use. Ask German fans whether Ullrich has been good for Tour TV coverage. Plainly Armstrong's celebrity is a huge draw but his celebrity is potentially a dangerous addiction for sponsors and their daily fix of his celebrity may lead to some nasty side-effects. One day they may wake up in a pool of their own vomit with the needle still sticking out of their arm..... I'm sure "The Shack" are mildly concerned about this latest story... we'll see what happens over the next few months....

My own view is that the future of the sport and coverage is the squeaky-clean teams like Sky, Columbia or Garmin - they're not perfect but if I were making a business investment in sponsorship or coverage then I'd prefer their human appeal to Armstrong's apparent / possible pact with Mephistopheles....

Monty Dog

Mephistopheles - bloody 'ell, not the devil re-incarnate, just the flamin' messenger - does this means there's worse to come?

sylvanus

No! Just a colourful metaphor! Joking aside there does seem to be a slightly "dark" element to the people around Mr Armstrong - I certainly wouldn't want to cross either him or his cohorts. It seems as though a lot of journalists and officials are just as wary of him as me - I'm sure the moderators here are very careful as a result....

I'd be happier if we had more new world characters like Wiggins - he may be no saint, although I'd believe he's clean; and he certainly has no "dark" element to him. Over the years, I've dealt with a few sociopaths who reach for legal threats at the drop of a hat and they're never nice people. One of the amazing things about them is their skill in convincing many people that they really are victims and no, I don't believe Team Armstrong's protestations of victimisation!

I spend a lot of time in France and the French press and cycling press are much more erudite and informed than most Anglo-Saxons believe. They have a romantic but informed passion for the sport of cycling and it gains the sort of coverage we can only dream of here although its a working-class sport - golf and tennis are for the bourgeoisie.

The French want the sport to be clean since the Tour is still a national symbol of huge importance and also selfishly they believe, with some justice in the past, that the "Tour à deux vitesses" has penalised their riders, and ours, for some years post-Festina.

Oh... and to be a bit pedantic the title of this thread should be "Astana: La merde hits the fan" - Merde is quite appropriately feminine -

dulldave

Was Sean Yates working as an Astana DS at the 2009 Tour? Just a thought.

Arkibal

dulldave wrote:

Was Sean Yates working as an Astana DS at the 2009 Tour? Just a thought.

No, JB, Gallopin, Ekimov and Demol were

dulldave

Thanks, couldn't find it with Google.

dave_1

Monty Dog wrote:

I find it bizarre that some people seem to imply these activities are justified because it's good for the sport? It's also apparent that the argument appears to be polarised between those who are fans of the sport of cycling and those who feel that the unsullied reputations of a few are best for the sport.

congrats on avoiding the question I asked yet again. Do you agree or disagree that big increases in viewing audience of racing are good for sponsorship? Yes or a no is all you need to say

dave_1

sylvanus wrote:

You all seem to be quietly ignoring the fact that Armstrong has on balance, not been good for sponsorship. When he retired in 2005, the Discovery team he owned quickly folded despite his close involvement because it couldn't find new sponsorship. It was widely believed to be less "careful" about an anti-drugs policy than some. Teams like High-Road / Columbia and Slipstream / Garmin found sponsors precisely because they were squeaky-clean on their drugs policy.

Surely Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich and many others have all shown that sponsors run a mile when there is a hint of scandal or drug use. Ask German fans whether Ullrich has been good for Tour TV coverage. Plainly Armstrong's celebrity is a huge draw but his celebrity is potentially a dangerous addiction for sponsors and their daily fix of his celebrity may lead to some nasty side-effects. One day they may wake up in a pool of their own vomit with the needle still sticking out of their arm..... I'm sure "The Shack" are mildly concerned about this latest story... we'll see what happens over the next few months....

My own view is that the future of the sport and coverage is the squeaky-clean teams like Sky, Columbia or Garmin - they're not perfect but if I were making a business investment in sponsorship or coverage then I'd prefer their human appeal to Armstrong's apparent / possible pact with Mephistopheles....

well done at avoiding the question...and sponsors that were personal sponsors of one rider and continued for 2 season after is not bad. Answer the question pls...

sylvanus

Do you agree or disagree that big increases in viewing audience of racing are good for sponsorship? Yes or a no is all you need to say

Plainly "Yes" is the answer short-term but surely ZDF and the Ullrich / Sinkewitz issues show how dangerous the sporting celeb with a dark side can be for the sport. Germany is a big country and "Der Jan" and his successes brought enormous popular coverage to the sport. Senior people at Telekom / T-Mobile were quite nuts about cycling but they made a shrewd investment which gave them huge popular coverage. I know some of them quite well and they are mad-keen born-again cyclists - their training camps and team cars were stuffed full of senior directors and clients who loved the sport and were deeply proud to be sponsoring it. Seeing them with pros and ex-pros was like watching a litter of puppies, leaping around. Stapleton, a deeply impressive human being, owned, sold and managed their US mobile business & was the blue-eyed buddha of the group - calm and reflective.

In retrospect they were probably a little naive about doping and simply didn't realise how ingrained it was in the sport. When "das scheiße" hit the fan, the money men on the board wanted out completely - there was genuine national disgust at Ullrich and his mates...

So I guess as a sponsor I would choose my heroes carefully just as I would personally. I can admire Armstrong for all his achievements but like many others I know some of his flaws and suspect others - he's not a human being I can admire completely since he is quite simply not "one of the good guys" and for me the real pleasure and meaning in cycling and sport as a whole is seeing a frail human achieving something great, something I admire but that equally I can identify with. Heroes can be human and flawed but they need to have a "truth" to them. Those that deny a truth may be a pleasurable short-term fix for but they will not b part, and may harm, the slow rebuilding of cycling's reputation and popularity for the healthy long-term

blazing_saddles

Dave_1 wrote:

congrats on avoiding the question I asked yet again. Do you agree or disagree that big increases in viewing audience of racing are good for sponsorship? Yes or a no is all you need to say

Dave_1 wrote:

well done at avoiding the question...and sponsors that were personal sponsors of one rider and continued for 2 season after is not bad. Answer the question pls...

And bravo for asking a leading question that has nothing to do with the current investigation.
Not uncommon in certain sectors.

While viewing audiences probably have increased by a reasonable figure in the US, their starting point, I believe is low. No idea of his impact upon European viewing figures.
He's certainly made an impression upon the ardent cycling fans......most of it negative.

How about some statistics and evidence for us to go on, Dave? might help to get you diversionary question answered.
After all, it's apparent evidence and multiple links is what got this thread up and running.

AS for 7 magical TUEs appearing. Aren't these now not back datable?