Astana

yourpaceormine

Not official but la Gazetta reporting Astana will keep their world tour licence.


(Apologies mods couldn't find the old thread, feel free to combine)

Anonymous

I'm done.

Anonymous

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana- ... ur-licence

hommelbier

yourpaceormine wrote:

(Apologies mods couldn't find the old thread, feel free to combine)

Back here.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13014994&start=120

blazing_saddles

Plus ça change etc........just the image.

talius

What can you do except laugh.

They'll fuggg up again. Vino's still there...

dabber

Quelle surprise! No cajones and the usual fudge. It makes you want to cry.

dolan_driver

My guess is that there isn't enough evidence against Astana to stand up to an appeal before CAS, the UCI know this and have no choice but to let Vino and friends back into the fold. At least the UCI have stood up and asked for the licence to be revoked. That wouldn't have happened under the previous regime.

Nibali, Aru and some of the other Italian riders might start looking around for pastures new for 2016 if they aren't tied down to long contracts.

DD.

thegreatdivide

Dolan Driver wrote:

My guess is that there isn't enough evidence against Astana to stand up to an appeal before CAS, the UCI know this and have no choice but to let Vino and friends back into the fold. At least the UCI have stood up and asked for the licence to be revoked. That wouldn't have happened under the previous regime.

Nibali, Aru and some of the other Italian riders might start looking around for pastures new for 2016 if they aren't tied down to long contracts.

DD.

Nibali and Aru will have a fantastic latter half of the season.

iainf72

Dolan Driver wrote:

My guess is that there isn't enough evidence against Astana to stand up to an appeal before CAS, the UCI know this and have no choice but to let Vino and friends back into the fold. At least the UCI have stood up and asked for the licence to be revoked. That wouldn't have happened under the previous regime.

But it did sort of - And I suspect the UCI have learnt how ugly that can get. Remember when the licence commission wouldn't give Katusha a world tour licence on ethical grounds. Went to CAS and the UCI lost.

CYCLESPORT1

Thats good news

RichN95.

I see the moral guardians on twitter are once again outraged that due process gets in the way of a lynching.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

I see the moral guardians on twitter are once again outraged that due process gets in the way of a lynching.

Is that your way of saying they are just unhappy with the verdict, or that they think the UCI licencing commission are part of their cleaner image, Cookson led global conspiracy theory?

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I see the moral guardians on twitter are once again outraged that due process gets in the way of a lynching.

Is that your way of saying they are just unhappy with the verdict, or that they think the UCI licencing commission are part of their cleaner image, Cookson led global conspiracy theory?

A bit of both. I can't quite see how someone can be unhappy (angry even) with a decision for which they have seen next to none of the evidence and have no knowledge of the relevant laws and criteria.

Turfle

And:

Greg Henderson ‏@Greghenderson1 3m3 minutes ago
Sad to see @fabaro1 "sick". Mate make sure next time u come back to our sport "healthy". Aka. Clean! #biopassport! Or don't come back!


Aru been done? I'm guessing that's who he's talking about.

inseine

Aru and supposed bio irregularities. 6th Astana bust ?

takethehighroad

Strong to see another rider putting it out there like that. Interesting, definately interesting

dolan_driver

Turfle wrote:

And:

Greg Henderson ‏@Greghenderson1 3m3 minutes ago
Sad to see @fabaro1 "sick". Mate make sure next time u come back to our sport "healthy". Aka. Clean! #biopassport! Or don't come back!


Aru been done? I'm guessing that's who he's talking about.

Aru's and Astana's response to this will be interesting. I guess the news that Astana were back in the fold was too much for GH.

DD.

RichN95.

'Calling out' another rider is all well and good if you are sure of your information. But if that's the case then it will become public in due time. So why get involved? If it doesn't then that's when you speak out.

Two words of warning to those tweeting damaging rumours: Lord McAlpine.

We shall see what happens, but I wouldn't recommend others following Henderson's lead.

yourpaceormine

hommelbier wrote:

yourpaceormine wrote:

(Apologies mods couldn't find the old thread, feel free to combine)

Back here.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13014994&start=120

That's the one, thank you. I really struggle accessing this forum on my Galaxy Tab, lots of really straightforward stuff just doesn't work or takes so long I just give up. Not sure where the weak link is - the forum, android, my tablet or the curse of the fat fingers...

iainf72

Gaze ta have info on what is I the report

Long and short of it is that if you revoked licence based on that you may as well remove all WT licences

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

'Calling out' another rider is all well and good if you are sure of your information. But if that's the case then it will become public in due time. So why get involved? If it doesn't then that's when you speak out.

Two words of warning to those tweeting damaging rumours: Lord McAlpine.

We shall see what happens, but I wouldn't recommend others following Henderson's lead.

It was already out there.
Aru's possible bio irregularities were talked about on Danish tv during the Fleche on Wednesday.

specialgueststar

all very well but is it AsTana or Ass tanar

Ashbeck

The big underlying problem you have here though is the one of 'need'. Unfortunately, in a sport thats volatile with regards funding and sponsorship, the UCI needs teams like Astana, and so it's prepared to go so far ie: revoke World Tour license, but it wouldn't ban them from the sport completely, drugs or not.

There isn't a system in place where you have set teams like you do in football, where the players come and go and they get busted but the team doesnt. In cycling, the nearest teams you have to any kind of stability long term are probably SKY, BMC and possibly Movistar. But any of those sponsors could pull out and bang goes the team,- just look at Rabobank over the last 3 years, that wouldn't happen in football. If Nike pulled out of sponsoring Manchester United say, United wouldn't go under. But cycling isn't built like that and teams like Astana know it.

The UCI knows it too, so in one sense it may bang the drum about being ruthless-and probably has the best intentions-but in reality it's not going to happen because they need as many teams as possible given the volatile nature of sponsorship, otherwise they would probably be revoking half the teams out there, where would the sport be then?

If the teams were set up not based on sponsorship and were set up like football, then the UCI could be ruthless, it could ban riders, fine teams and possibly relegate them to the lower ranks, but as it stands it can't afford to get rid of teams completely. However frustrating that might be.

RichN95.

Ashbeck wrote:

The big underlying problem you have here though is the one of 'need'. Unfortunately, in a sport thats volatile with regards funding and sponsorship, the UCI needs teams like Astana, and so it's prepared to go so far ie: revoke World Tour license, but it wouldn't ban them from the sport completely, drugs or not.

There isn't a system in place where you have set teams like you do in football, where the players come and go and they get busted but the team doesnt. In cycling, the nearest teams you have to any kind of stability long term are probably SKY, BMC and possibly Movistar. But any of those sponsors could pull out and bang goes the team,- just look at Rabobank over the last 3 years, that wouldn't happen in football. If Nike pulled out of sponsoring Manchester United say, United wouldn't go under. But cycling isn't built like that and teams like Astana know it.

The UCI knows it too, so in one sense it may bang the drum about being ruthless-and probably has the best intentions-but in reality it's not going to happen because they need as many teams as possible given the volatile nature of sponsorship, otherwise they would probably be revoking half the teams out there, where would the sport be then?

If the teams were set up not based on sponsorship and were set up like football, then the UCI could be ruthless, it could ban riders, fine teams and possibly relegate them to the lower ranks, but as it stands it can't afford to get rid of teams completely. However frustrating that might be.

Two points here.

Firstly, the UCI recommended that Atana have their licence revoked. However, they don't make the decision - it goes to an independent commision. They made the decision, not the UCI. It's interesting that the same people that demand that dope testing is made independent from the UCI also expect them to act like a dictator when it suits their opinions. (Not including you in that BTW)

Sec ondly, UCI don't need teams like Astana. Teams always come and go. Sponsors are most crucial to cyclists' wages. The UCI get a little from WT licences, but that's mostly for necessary expenses relating to that team.
What the UCI really need is investment in races, not teams. And Astana (and Kazakhstan as a whole) put no money into races or attract sponsors to races.

sherer

they at least tried and with some of these cases being for the Continental team maybe there wasn't much they could do.

With the money they put into the sport the UCI had their backs to the wall to start with.

Does show the whole model of the sport is a bit out of whack as a lot of the money from running the races goes to the ASO and others not the UCI.

RichN95.

sherer wrote:

With the money they put into the sport the UCI had their backs to the wall to start with.

But they don't put money into the sport. They put it into the pockets of a hand ful of cyclists. The sport will continue just fine without their money. Just as it did without Rabobank and T-Mobile and Credit Agricole and Liberty Seguros and countless others.

The business plan of the sport as a whole is unstustainable, but it's not reliant on any one investor. The likes of Astana may infact deter investors.

sherer

RichN95 wrote:

sherer wrote:

With the money they put into the sport the UCI had their backs to the wall to start with.

But they don't put money into the sport. They put it into the pockets of a hand ful of cyclists. The sport will continue just fine without their money. Just as it did without Rabobank and T-Mobile and Credit Agricole and Liberty Seguros and countless others.

The business plan of the sport as a whole is unstustainable, but it's not reliant on any one investor. The likes of Astana may infact deter investors.

Aren't they also behind two races on the Asia Tour ?

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

Firstly, the UCI recommended that Astana have their licence revoked. However, they don't make the decision - it goes to an independent commission. They made the decision, not the UCI. It's interesting that the same people that demand that dope testing is made independent from the UCI also expect them to act like a dictator when it suits their opinions.

That way Hein lies.

supermurph09

Putting the ruling to one side, why is nobody asking the question as to why "clean" teams are beating a "doped" Astana?

RichN95.

Supermurph09 wrote:

Putting the ruling to one side, why is nobody asking the question as to why "clean" teams are beating a "doped" Astana?

Because the doped riders at Astana are actually very average riders and Astana are a bit of a shambles as a team. Doping doesn't make you automatically better than all the clean riders. The gains available these days are pretty small.

In the past doping may have taken a rider from 20th place to the podium. Now it will take them the 18th place.