Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Drugs in other sports and the media.

1188189191193194

Posts

  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,431
    Yeah, I've never been that happy about Astana, and I've found it hard to get behind any riders that are with them - even Danes.

    As for previous history, having started in the last known doping era, he doesn't really have a lot to show on his palmares for it. I know that he had an incredible season in 2019, but that looks more like a change of some sort than any continued doping.

    The 2019 season itself was astounding, far better than he's produced at any other point in his career - which is a legitimate ground for suspicion, but it's also arguable that he's underperformed for most of his career (certainly if you listen to Danish TV commentators). Anyway, it's difficult to suggest that he's suspicious because his career includes the last known doping era and also suspicious because he's suddenly performing at a higher level.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 13,839
    CADF have made a statement and an apology:

    https://www.cadf.ch/cadf-statement-on-allegations-against-jakob-fuglsang-alexey-lutsenko-and-dr-michele-ferrari/

    Finally, the CADF confirms that after careful review of the elements available, it has not submitted the report to the UCI for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the individuals or team in question.

    The CADF will not be making any further comment on the matter.


    So, as you were.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,262
    edited 5 February
    That's absolute shithouse, that is. Fuglsang and Lutsenko have been called from their holes to their poles on this, and everyone says 'Astana again'; that's not just going to go away now. Shite sticks.

    The BBC had an article on it, how much do you want to bet there won't be one on CADF's apology?
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,270 Lives Here
    Oof.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,742
    Shurely BBC 'Sports Editor' Dan Roan is a person of impeccable journalistic standards and will uphold the organisation's commitment to scrutiny, consistency and due impartiality. No?
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,431
    There really should be some legal recourse here. I'd also like to think one or two journos should be examining their ethics.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,262

    That's absolute shithouse, that is. Fuglsang and Lutsenko have been called from their holes to their poles on this, and everyone says 'Astana again'; that's not just going to go away now. Shite sticks.

    The BBC had an article on it, how much do you want to bet there won't be one on CADF's apology?

    Well, I'll take it back, there is an article, though it's not exactly sympathetic.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,262
    orraloon said:

    Shurely BBC 'Sports Editor' Dan Roan is a person of impeccable journalistic standards and will uphold the organisation's commitment to scrutiny, consistency and due impartiality. No?

    He's too busy knocking one out over some daps. Doing over Nike is his current infatuation.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • TashmanTashman Posts: 2,721
    Whilst I get all the vitriol towards Roans stance. Is it not the same way that people treated David Walsh around the Lance Armstrong stuff. Perhaps he has information that we're not privy to.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,742
    Hmm. Maybe he does. Or maybe he is a bit of a d1ck. Reference his comments on the Leicester City chairman fatality. First google hit
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-sports-editor-dan-roan-caught-on-camera-making-remark-about-marriage-of-leicester-city-owner-a3975146.html

    But it was all ok as "absolutely no offence intended". So that's fine then.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,793
    Tashman said:

    Whilst I get all the vitriol towards Roans stance. Is it not the same way that people treated David Walsh around the Lance Armstrong stuff. Perhaps he has information that we're not privy to.


    Walsh (and his friend Ballaster) did the hard work, got the evidence, presented it clearly. They knew their stuff.
    Roan on the other hand is as tabloid as they come. Everything is sensationalised, everything is editorialised with large doses of opinion. Everyone's position is 'untenable', every situation is 'troubling', discussions are always 'crisis talks' and reputations are 'in tatters', none of which turn out to be true. And he's fond of doorstepping, a sure sign of an ego driven hack.

    Also Walsh had been around cycling on and off for a long time. I doubt Roan could pick out Valverde or Sagan from a line up.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,262
    Thanks Rich. That's exactly my issue, but put far more articulately than I could!
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • TashmanTashman Posts: 2,721
    Fair enough, I just read Seven Deadly Sins and seeing this today it occurred it could be similar. I have no basis for my statement other than the Devil's Advocate really
  • Dorset_BoyDorset_Boy Posts: 2,439
    Isn't DRoan on the Folau / Rugby League gig at the moment?
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 13,839
    edited 6 February

    Isn't DRoan on the Folau / Rugby League gig at the moment?

    He's probably waiting for a space to become available on the Beeb's Rugby League page as they are currently a bit light with only 5 articles on the guy.

    Not that the BBC have agendas or anything.....
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,433
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 7,886
    What was the previous UFC record...
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,634
    Is that genuinely the sport's organisers celebrating that one of their participants hasn't failed a test (yet)?
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,433
    edited 15 February
    Dude, It's Jeff Novitsky celebrating that one of his participants hasn't failed a test (yet)?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Good to see UEFA grow a set with regards to Man City's cheating and follow the hard line example set by the PRL in dealing with financial "doping" at the Saracens.

    It certainly has lead to a lot of coverage, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth about personnel leaving in the wake of such a sanction, but with spending spiraling out of control, something needed to be done.

    After all, when it comes to the bottom line, it is many of us, including non-football fans, who get landed with a sizeable chunk of the bill.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • sherersherer Posts: 2,360
    its still subject to CAS appeal, so could end up going either way.

    I also wonder where the German press got this info to start with. Lets face it Real have sold land back to the local council, then I think the council let them use it for free. PSG have done the same as City, and im sure there are more examples out there too.

    Hope CAS dont overturn this, but more clubs need to be investigated
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,793
    edited 15 February
    sherer said:


    I also wonder where the German press got this info to start with.

    A Portuguese hacker called Rui Pinto. He's currently in prison awaiting trial.


    Personally I think this ban is stupid. The rule is there so stop teams getting into unsustainable debt. It stops them spending money on players and wages that they haven't earned. But the Man City money was an investment from the owner. There's no debt. But because it's not 'earned', they had to dress it up as earnings via inflated sponsorship deals. What this does is prevent investment in smaller clubs by owners that can afford it and maintains the cartel of established clubs that have a lot of influence over UEFA.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • gsk82gsk82 Posts: 2,396
    RichN95. said:

    sherer said:


    I also wonder where the German press got this info to start with.

    A Portuguese hacker called Rui Pinto. He's currently in prison awaiting trial.


    Personally I think this ban is stupid. The rule is there so stop teams getting into unsustainable debt. It stops them spending money on players and wages that they haven't earned. But the Man City money was an investment from the owner. There's no debt. But because it's not 'earned', they had to dress it up as earnings via inflated sponsorship deals. What this does is prevent investment in smaller clubs by owners that can afford it and maintains the cartel of established clubs that have a lot of influence over UEFA.
    The super League salary cap was brought in to stop clubs over spending. It then suddenly became about leveling the competition. All it has really achieved is to lower the standard across the League. The best players still want to play for the best teams and the same teams are still winning everything
    "Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,750
    RichN95. said:

    sherer said:


    I also wonder where the German press got this info to start with.

    A Portuguese hacker called Rui Pinto. He's currently in prison awaiting trial.


    Personally I think this ban is stupid. The rule is there so stop teams getting into unsustainable debt. It stops them spending money on players and wages that they haven't earned. But the Man City money was an investment from the owner. There's no debt. But because it's not 'earned', they had to dress it up as earnings via inflated sponsorship deals. What this does is prevent investment in smaller clubs by owners that can afford it and maintains the cartel of established clubs that have a lot of influence over UEFA.
    If Man City didn't receive the equity injections it wouldn't be able to afford its salaries and would end up in financial difficulties. If it was legitimate income this would not be a concern.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,793
    edited 15 February



    If Man City didn't receive the equity injections it wouldn't be able to afford its salaries and would end up in financial difficulties. If it was legitimate income this would not be a concern.

    But this is the club owner investing his own money in his own company. There is no loan or debt. (Unlike Manchester United who spend tens of millions of their income servicing the Glazers' debts.)

    If someone of great wealth (Ineos, Bezos) buys a decent sized premiership team (Villa, Everton, Newcastle) why shouldn't be able to spend their own money to equal the spending of the teams that have the benefit of Champions League money every year? This "Fair Play" rule prevents that from happening, thus maintain the status quo for the establish teams.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,793
    RichN95. said:



    If Man City didn't receive the equity injections it wouldn't be able to afford its salaries and would end up in financial difficulties. If it was legitimate income this would not be a concern.

    But this is the club owner investing his own money in his own company. There is no loan or debt. There will be no financial difficulties.

    If someone of great wealth (Ineos, Bezos) buys a decent sized premiership team (Villa, Everton, Newcastle) why shouldn't be able to spend their own money to equal the spending of the teams that have the benefit of Champions League money every year? This "Fair Play" rule prevents that from happening, thus maintain the status quo for the establish teams.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,750
    RichN95. said:



    If Man City didn't receive the equity injections it wouldn't be able to afford its salaries and would end up in financial difficulties. If it was legitimate income this would not be a concern.

    But this is the club owner investing his own money in his own company. There is no loan or debt. (Unlike Manchester United who spend tens of millions of their income servicing the Glazers' debts.)

    If someone of great wealth (Ineos, Bezos) buys a decent sized premiership team (Villa, Everton, Newcastle) why shouldn't be able to spend their own money to equal the spending of the teams that have the benefit of Champions League money every year? This "Fair Play" rule prevents that from happening, thus maintain the status quo for the establish teams.
    The debt in this case is the commitment to pay wages. I'd be happy for there to be a test where a club could demonstrate that they are able to pay all future commitments without the need for an equity injection. I suspect City would fail that test anyway.

    The problem with owners spending lots of their own money is when they stop doing it.

    The fans, FA, premier league etc. don't like bankrupt clubs.

  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,793
    edited 15 February



    The debt in this case is the commitment to pay wages. I'd be happy for there to be a test where a club could demonstrate that they are able to pay all future commitments without the need for an equity injection. I suspect City would fail that test anyway.

    The problem with owners spending lots of their own money is when they stop doing it.

    The fans, FA, premier league etc. don't like bankrupt clubs.

    But the equity in Manchester City far outstrips their financial commitments. If the injections stop, then the club would have to borrow against that equity, reducing the value of club. It would be bad business, but easily manageable.

    Compare to Manchester United who have £384m debt on £627m income (and those figures were for a year when they were in the Champions League). Their debt went up 100m last year. A few years out of the CL and how is that sustainable? But apparently that's fine.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,750
    RichN95. said:



    The debt in this case is the commitment to pay wages. I'd be happy for there to be a test where a club could demonstrate that they are able to pay all future commitments without the need for an equity injection. I suspect City would fail that test anyway.

    The problem with owners spending lots of their own money is when they stop doing it.

    The fans, FA, premier league etc. don't like bankrupt clubs.

    But the equity in Manchester City far outstrips their financial commitments. If the injections stop, then the club would have to borrow against that equity, reducing the value of club. It would be bad business, but easily manageable.

    Compare to Manchester United who have £384m debt on £627m income (and those figures were for a year when they were in the Champions League). Their debt went up 100m last year. A few years out of the CL and how is that sustainable? But apparently that's fine.
    If City borrowed cash it would not affect its profit. City's fundamental problem is that it is not profitable. Note companies with limited prospects of making a profit are likely to find it harder to raise debt.

    United on the other hand are presumably profitable (or not sufficiently loss making) in spite of the interest on the debt
Sign In or Register to comment.