Drugs in other sports and the media.

blazing_saddles

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.

salsiccia1

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?

rick_chasey

Oof.

orraloon

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_Doctor

There really should be some legal recourse here. I'd also like to think one or two journos should be examining their ethics.

salsiccia1

salsiccia1 said:

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.

salsiccia1

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.

Tashman

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.

orraloon

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.

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.

salsiccia1

Thanks Rich. That's exactly my issue, but put far more articulately than I could!

Tashman

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_Boy

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

blazing_saddles

Dorset_Boy said:

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.....

amrushton

https://ewn.co.za/2020/02/06/south-african-swim-star-schoeman-banned-for-doping

ddraver

I erm.....yep...

https://twitter.com/ufc/status/1228052989258002432?s=19

bobmcstuff

What was the previous UFC record...

Pross

Is that genuinely the sport's organisers celebrating that one of their participants hasn't failed a test (yet)?

ddraver

Dude, It's Jeff Novitsky celebrating that one of his participants hasn't failed a test (yet)?

blazing_saddles

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.

sherer

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.

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.

gsk82

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

TheBigBean

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.

TheBigBean 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.

RichN95.

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean 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.

TheBigBean

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean 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.

TheBigBean 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.

TheBigBean

RichN95. said:

TheBigBean 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

No_Ta_Doctor

Right... well I know this is a cycling forum, but I'm going to have to chip in on the football side anyway, seeing as we're apparently doing that now.

Firstly - does FFP effectively equal the rich, established "big clubs" raising the drawbridge to prevent others joining them? Yes, there's a fair amount of truth to that. In reality FFP came too late, it's shutting the barn door after several horses (City, Chelsea, PSG...) had already bolted. And while we'd already seen the rich benefactor football model many times before (Blackburn in the early 90s come to mind) it was orders of magnitude below what the oligarchs and petro-states have been doing since then.

The influx of this cash - coupled with the massive disparity between Champions League clubs and everyone else - caused runaway inflation in player wages and transfer fees. This in turn was crippling many clubs, that after a hundred or more years of playing football were going to the wall.

FFP, by insisting clubs operate within a fixed level of operating deficit (note - not debt) has managed to turn this around. Rich benefactors were prohibited from bankrolling defecit because it isn't sustainable - not for the club they bankroll nor football in general. We still need massive reform of the CL (won't happen, at least not in the right direction, it's shaping up to further ring-fence cash for the big clubs) but FFP is a step in the right direction. If FFP had been in place a couple of decades earlier then Leeds would probably still be in the premier league, and not fighting to come back up after more than a decade in the lower leagues.

As for ManUtd's debt, their gross debt hasn't increased, their net debt has. In essence, they didn't borrow to buy players, they used their cash reserves (or similar). I don't know how sustainable this is in the long run, but they pay around £25mill a year to service their debt and *also* pay out about the same in dividends. That suggests to me that their operating margins are well within the margins of good housekeeping, even if the leveraged buyout that is the source of the debt was far from desirable.

And Man City? It should be remembered, they aren't being smashed for breaking FFP rules. They're being smashed for lying about it - that's fraud.