Wildcards for Tour of Lombardy
Comments
-
No repeat of this then?
0 -
iainf72 wrote:Acqua e Sapone
Diquigiovanni
BBox
BMC
Carmiooro Ngc
Cervelo
Cofidis
Colnago – Csf
Isd – Neri
No invite for Vacansoleil, Radioshack or Footon
Sorry to focus on it, but how many (ex-)dopers in those teams?0 -
iainf72 wrote:Acqua e Sapone
Diquigiovanni
BBox
BMC
Carmiooro Ngc
Cervelo
Cofidis
Colnago – Csf
Isd – Neri
No invite for Vacansoleil, Radioshack or Footon
No HTC-Columbia either by the looks of the list on Gazzetta - surely a mistake?
Milano, 6 settembre 2010 – Rcs Sport ha reso noto l'elenco delle squadre che saranno al via della classica Gran Piemonte (giovedì 14 ottobre) su un percorso adatto alle ruote veloci che deve ancora essere svelato nei suoi particolari. Le squadre sono 20 e saranno composte da 8 corridori:
Ag2R (Fra), Astana (Kaz), Caisse D’Epargne (Spa) Garmin (Usa), Lampre Farnese, Liquigas Doimo, Omega Pharma – Lotto (Bel), Quick Step (Bel) , Rabobank (Ola), Team Sky (Gb), Htc-Columbia (Usa), Katusha (Rus), Saxo Bank (Dan), Acqua e Sapone, Androni Giocattoli – Diquigiovanni, Bmc (Usa), Cervelo (Svi), Cofidis (Fra), Colnago – Csf (Irl), Isd-Neri
Rese note anche le partecipanti del Lombardia, in programma sabato 16 ottobre. Le squadre invitate saranno composte da 8 corridori ciascuna. Spicca la presenza della Carmiooro di Emanuele Sella, che torna così alla classica dele foglie morte. Non figura nell'elenco invece la Vacansoleil di Riccardo Riccò.
Ag2R (Fra), Astana (Kaz), Caisse D’Epargne (Spa), Euskaltel (Spa), Francaise Des Jeux (Fra), Garmin (Usa), Lampre Farnese, Liquigas – Doimo, Omega – Lotto (BEL), Quick Step (Bel), Rabobabnk (Ola), Team Sky (Gb), Katusha (Rus), Milram (Ger), Saxo Bank (Dan), Acqua e Sapone, Androni - Diquigiovanni, Bouygues Telecom(Fra), Bmc (Usa) , Carmiooro Ngc(Gb), Cervelo (Svi), Cofidis (Fra), Colnago – Csf (Irl), Isd – Neri.0 -
stagehopper wrote:No HTC-Columbia either by the looks of the list on Gazzetta - surely a mistake?
I think so - Tuttobici have HTC on the list.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
-
-
Have Vacansoleil shot themselves in the foot with the Ricco signing? They were there last year and now they're not. Maybe Ricco is still on probation as far as RCS is concerned.0
-
Given the UCI insisted the invites were based on rankings for the other classics do we think Radioshack decided not to bother? And if that is the case does it put into question their commitment to next year?0
-
Nobody seems to know the selection criteria, some teams are there but others are not.
Regardless of Ricco, this sort of mess should not happen. Clear rules are needed, teams investing millions should know whether they qualify or not. Hopefully the agreement for 2011 race entry requirements will be fixed.
Note that some past rules used to state Pro Tour teams could not sign riders coming back from a doping ban but this was dropped after it couldn't be enforced when Bruyneel tried to sign Basso and Liquigas finally signed him.0 -
The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
Regarding Vacensoleil, I think they had issues before signing Ricco.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
I'd totally forgotten that RCS had excluded them for the Giro only for Bruyneel to claim they never wanted to go anyway. Plus there was Armstrong's very late withdrawal from Milan-San Remo. Bloody hell it's been a long season.0 -
-
-
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Ian, what issues did/do Vaconsolei have?!?
A couple of questionable riders. But I was sort of alluding that there must be more to it than that considering how looked over they were.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I reckon this is still the fallout over Armstrong orchestrating the rider protest in the 2009 Giro.
You know what they say about people in cycling having long memories.0 -
iainf72 wrote:The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
Regarding Vacensoleil, I think they had issues before signing Ricco.
He may have had this one on the calendar but he certainly did not have the Giro, he sent a lettr in January to that effect.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Bronzie wrote:I reckon this is still the fallout over Armstrong orchestrating the rider protest in the 2009 Giro.
You know what they say about people in cycling having long memories.
LA was not the main instigator of that.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
stagehopper wrote:iainf72 wrote:The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
I'd totally forgotten that RCS had excluded them for the Giro only for Bruyneel to claim they never wanted to go anyway.
Which was correct given the contents of the January letter.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Why on earth are Carmiooro registered in the UK??!!http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Moray Gub wrote:stagehopper wrote:iainf72 wrote:The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
I'd totally forgotten that RCS had excluded them for the Giro only for Bruyneel to claim they never wanted to go anyway.
Which was correct given the contents of the January letter.
Well, maybe, but getting into a p1ssing contest with the second most important race organiser clearly gets you nowhere irrespective of who sent what letters to whom when.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
calvjones wrote:Moray Gub wrote:stagehopper wrote:iainf72 wrote:The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
I'd totally forgotten that RCS had excluded them for the Giro only for Bruyneel to claim they never wanted to go anyway.
Which was correct given the contents of the January letter.
Well, maybe, but getting into a p1ssing contest with the second most important race organiser clearly gets you nowhere irrespective of who sent what letters to whom when.
Maybe so but the fact is they never wanted to got o the Giro anyway so not getting an invite at tthat time meant nothing.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:stagehopper wrote:iainf72 wrote:The clear message here is that RCS have no love for The Shack. Bruyneel had these races on their calendar, so there can be no "oh, we didn't want to go anyway"
I'd totally forgotten that RCS had excluded them for the Giro only for Bruyneel to claim they never wanted to go anyway.
Which was correct given the contents of the January letter.
Didn't the letter contradict statements made in the weeks leading up to the snub?0 -
Yes it did. Radioshack were very keen to ride the Giro only to change their tune when no invite was forthcoming.
Payback time for LA's behaviour at the Giro last year.0 -
Seems odd that they have taken the RCS to CAS over their exclusion from a one day classic, but did nothing but tweet vague threats and insinuations in the direction of Unipublic, over their Vuelta non-invite.
To me, they had more of a CAS case, in regard of the Spanish snub, as opposed to a clear difference of opinion with the Italians."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:Bronzie wrote:I reckon this is still the fallout over Armstrong orchestrating the rider protest in the 2009 Giro.
You know what they say about people in cycling having long memories.
LA was not the main instigator of that.
He was according to the CN report of the time:Apparently, the peloton's main men - most likely a combination of Armstrong (who emailed race director Angelo Zomegnan a few days prior, saying he was concerned about the nature of yesterday's finish to Bergamo and the Milano circuit race), Di Luca, Basso, Garzelli, Cioni and Simoni - decided the circuit was too dangerous to be raced at full speed and risk crashing.
..........and more importantly in Zomegnan's comments after the stage:When asked if he was referring to Lance Armstrong, Zomegnan refused to specifically name the rider who the race had invested so heavily in attracting as the culprit. "I never name people who have disappointed me, just like I don't name girlfriends that have snubbed me."
Several riders acknowledged that the American was behind the move and many agreed with his reasoning. But Katusha's Filippo Pozzato thought the decision to raise objections mid-stage led to chaos. "After the first lap, Lance said this circuit shouldn't be raced on," said Filippo Pozzato0 -
Bronzie wrote:Moray Gub wrote:Bronzie wrote:I reckon this is still the fallout over Armstrong orchestrating the rider protest in the 2009 Giro.
You know what they say about people in cycling having long memories.
LA was not the main instigator of that.
He was according to the CN report of the time:Apparently, the peloton's main men - most likely a combination of Armstrong (who emailed race director Angelo Zomegnan a few days prior, saying he was concerned about the nature of yesterday's finish to Bergamo and the Milano circuit race), Di Luca, Basso, Garzelli, Cioni and Simoni - decided the circuit was too dangerous to be raced at full speed and risk crashing.
..........and more importantly in Zomegnan's comments after the stage:When asked if he was referring to Lance Armstrong, Zomegnan refused to specifically name the rider who the race had invested so heavily in attracting as the culprit. "I never name people who have disappointed me, just like I don't name girlfriends that have snubbed me."
Several riders acknowledged that the American was behind the move and many agreed with his reasoning. But Katusha's Filippo Pozzato thought the decision to raise objections mid-stage led to chaos. "After the first lap, Lance said this circuit shouldn't be raced on," said Filippo Pozzato
That top quote does not imply Armstrong was the "main" instigator. It names him in a group of several riders, and you would need some evidence he played a larger part than the others for him to be a "main" instigator.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:Bronzie wrote:Moray Gub wrote:Bronzie wrote:I reckon this is still the fallout over Armstrong orchestrating the rider protest in the 2009 Giro.
You know what they say about people in cycling having long memories.
LA was not the main instigator of that.
He was according to the CN report of the time:Apparently, the peloton's main men - most likely a combination of Armstrong (who emailed race director Angelo Zomegnan a few days prior, saying he was concerned about the nature of yesterday's finish to Bergamo and the Milano circuit race), Di Luca, Basso, Garzelli, Cioni and Simoni - decided the circuit was too dangerous to be raced at full speed and risk crashing.
..........and more importantly in Zomegnan's comments after the stage:When asked if he was referring to Lance Armstrong, Zomegnan refused to specifically name the rider who the race had invested so heavily in attracting as the culprit. "I never name people who have disappointed me, just like I don't name girlfriends that have snubbed me."
Several riders acknowledged that the American was behind the move and many agreed with his reasoning. But Katusha's Filippo Pozzato thought the decision to raise objections mid-stage led to chaos. "After the first lap, Lance said this circuit shouldn't be raced on," said Filippo Pozzato
That top quote does not imply Armstrong was the "main" instigator. It names him in a group of several riders, and you would need some evidence he played a larger part than the others for him to be a "main" instigator.
What, like emailing the Z man and being specifically mentioned by Pozzato?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ian, what issues did/do Vaconsolei have?!?
A couple of questionable riders. But I was sort of alluding that there must be more to it than that considering how looked over they were.
You refering to Leukemans and Hoogerland? (I hope not!)0
