McQuaid's Last Stand ?

[Keith]

Looks like he's going for the ultimate bluff here
http://assets.rug.be/img_art/site/images/31413BE4-90E5-4751-ACF5-BEA31F72280A.pdf
!

So is the UCI going to suspend 160 races ? Nice try, but that means
the season is over then ! Ridiculous, everyone should just tell him to
get stuffed.

Also nice to see that the UCI is dragging their feet on a "hair doping
test"...what a surprise

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

[benn.trovato@hotmail.com]

On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
> that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

The root of the problem is money, as usual...
Unlike the UCI, the promoters experience direct financial loss when
events and teams disappear as the result of sponsor remorse. ASO and
the other organizers don't perceive they get enough value from ceding
control to UCI structures, and they're determined to protect their
franchises.
The UCI has an unimaginative figurehead who brays in simple-minded
fashion about the rules; on the continent, they know the rules usually
exist for someone else's benefit.
The organizers don't have to call McQuaid's bluff. The crisis will
reveal the internal fault line of the UCI between the federations of
the traditional cycling nations, and the federations which depend on
sucking the IOC tit.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:romts31u2r44kj1r6opkmetusmek8fd69n@4ax.com,
Keith <nospam@nospam.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
> that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

Thanks for the easy target. You are wrong. Hope this helps.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
> that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

You're wrong.

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

ASO's decision to exclude Astana from it's events is quite petty.
Furthermore it is another example of guilt by innuendo, which has done
so much damage to cycling. It is unfaair at this point to exclude
Astana from the TDF. If the ASO has concerns about some riders on
Astana that is one thing, but to exclude the whole team is unjust.


On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Looks like he's going for the ultimate bluff herehttp://assets.rug.be/img_art/site/images/31413BE4-90E5-4751-ACF5-BEA3...
> !
>
> So is the UCI going to suspend 160 races ? Nice try, but that means
> the season is over then ! Ridiculous, everyone should just tell him to
> get stuffed.
>
> Also nice to see that the UCI is dragging their feet on a "hair doping
> test"...what a surprise
>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
> that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

[jean-yves hervé]

In article
<22c81f16-6713-4552-b636-4bf776f72515@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
benn.trovato@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> > Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
> > that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?
>
> The root of the problem is money, as usual...
> Unlike the UCI, the promoters experience direct financial loss when
> events and teams disappear as the result of sponsor remorse. ASO and
> the other organizers don't perceive they get enough value from ceding
> control to UCI structures, and they're determined to protect their
> franchises.

I agree that this is an important part of the problem. Imagine that you
are at the helm of ASO, which means that you are running (between other
things) the TdF and Paris-Nice. Obviously, the TdF is the one that
almost every team want to participate to. And now you see UCI come up
with this Pro Tour contraption and state that
(1) you must allow all Pro Tour teams to participate to the TdF;
(2) Pro Tour teams must participate to all races UCI says are
mandatory;
(3) UCI says that Paris-Nice is not one of these mandatory
Pro Tour races and UCI might impose another competion
in the same time period.
So, basically, UCI is using the pull of your own main event to hurt your
other races. Why should ASO go along with this? (the same obviously
applies to the organizers of the Giro and the Vuelta).

To this day I have not yet read any good argument in favor of the Pro
Tour, anything that could make me think that maybe the Pro Tour is good
for cycling after all.

jyh.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 5, 10:12*am, benn.trov...@hotmail.com wrote:

> The root of the problem is money, as usual...

Send your problems to me. Thanks.

[Bob Schwartz]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:romts31u2r44kj1r6opkmetusmek8fd69n@4ax.com,
> Keith <nospam@nospam.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
>> that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?
>
> Thanks for the easy target. You are wrong. Hope this helps.

I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
a well thought out plan.

Bob Schwartz

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
> a well thought out plan.

The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
Olympic sport.

[Keith]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:33:53 -0800 (PST), rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
>> that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?
>
>You're wrong.

Great, care to elaborate ? Obviously I was referring to what triggered
the CURRENT stand-off, so prove me wrong now.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:2a41ea11-f3a8-4f68-84c1-a6b583e416f6@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com <rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
>> a well thought out plan.
>
> The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
> Olympic sport.

Cycling should very well stop thinking.
Messy maquereaueconomic planning.
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.

[DA74]

On Mar 5, 1:35*pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
> > a well thought out plan.
>
> The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
> Olympic sport.

Abso****enlutely right.

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Mar 5, 2:03 pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:

> Messy maquereaueconomic planning.

It's time for you to stop this with a "Fin."

[Howard Kveck]

In article <84b0f62d-f21e-4ef6-b4d3-e202000167e8@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2:03 pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > Messy maquereaueconomic planning.
>
> It's time for you to stop this with a "Fin."

Is he thinking of mackeraleconomics (to get that stuff going again)?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 5, 10:24*pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:35*pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
> > > a well thought out plan.
>
> > The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
> > Olympic sport.
>
> Abso****enlutely right.

So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? It's the only
way many countires can get support for the sport. Look at the
struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport. And it did
give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. You can't say the
traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
attacks.

[Tom Kunich]

"mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote in message
news:99c8fcec-4751-4043-9328-9f44ee3f978f@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? It's the only
> way many countires can get support for the sport. Look at the
> struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport. And it did
> give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. You can't say the
> traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
> encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
> attacks.

It's difficult to translate the stupid stuff on this group sometime. There's
nothing wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport and but everything wrong
with the Olympic Committee dictating the rules of the game and insisting
that anyone caught using drugs (even though the tests are not really
accurate) should be totally destroyed.

The effect of WADA has been evil and not a positive force. They seem to
believe that rumors of drugging are enough to convict someone and even after
they've served their time WADA wants them barred from sports.

This is extremely bad and I personally will have nothing to do with the
Olympics or WADA until this attitude is changed.

And by the way, just so it's clear - I lost a brother to drugs so I
absolutely HATE drug users. But I'm not into making them even worse than
they really are.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Mar 6, 11:52 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:24 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 1:35 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
> > > > a well thought out plan.
>
> > > The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
> > > Olympic sport.
>
> > Abso****enlutely right.
>
> So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? It's the only
> way many countires can get support for the sport. Look at the
> struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport. And it did
> give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. You can't say the
> traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
> encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
> attacks.

Right, because there's no doping for the Olympics,
and national federations have never tolerated or
encouraged doping.

In many pro sports, the Olympic federation and the pro
league are two separate entities and don't conflate their
agendas. It's hard to say that you're really running a
viable pro league in a country if your sport's existence in
that country is dependent on the flow of Olympic money.
Nobody thinks that speedskating in the US is a viable
professional sport, and that's fine. It's an Olympic sport.
But if you try to run a pro sport off the Olympic teat, eventually
the Olympics and the governing boards will interfere with the
business decisions that pro sports make (because pro sports
are supposed to make money) and that is what is happening
in the power struggle between the UCI and the race organizers.

Dope is secondary.

Ben
It's all about money, ain't a damn thing funny

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

> So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? It's the only
> way many countires can get support for the sport. Look at the
> struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport.

dumbass,

nothing is wrong with olympic sports and the government support it
gets. but the objective then is different than professional sports,
which are meant to generate revenue and not operate off of grants.

> And it did
> give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. You can't say the
> traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
> encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
> attacks.

yes, but you can tell by the tone of comments here and the tone of
letters to cyclingnews, velonews that peanut gallery fans aren't
really against doping. they see the current crackdown as the rights of
their hero athletes being trampled on by mean old bureaucrats.

so from the financial health of the professional side of the sport it
makes sense to drop the WADA compliance and institute an NFL-like drug
policy, ie. the way it used to be.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<99c8fcec-4751-4043-9328-9f44ee3f978f@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:

> On Mar 5, 10:24*pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 1:35*pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
> > > > a well thought out plan.
> >
> > > The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
> > > Olympic sport.
> >
> > Abso****enlutely right.
>
> So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? It's the only
> way many countires can get support for the sport. Look at the
> struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport. And it did
> give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. You can't say the
> traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
> encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
> attacks.

Tyler's dad: your humor is too subtle, and nobody else downthread has
figured out that track wishes it could get to the struggling level of
support that CX has in the US.

Also, WADA isn't a serious anti-doping organization.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Tom Kunich]

<hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:08ec59f8-b4ca-457a-b44d-54fb20fa625c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> ASO's decision to exclude Astana from it's events is quite petty.
> Furthermore it is another example of guilt by innuendo, which has done
> so much damage to cycling. It is unfaair at this point to exclude
> Astana from the TDF. If the ASO has concerns about some riders on
> Astana that is one thing, but to exclude the whole team is unjust.

The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".

[jean-yves hervé]

In article <13t0mugmvqe28dd@corp.supernews.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> And by the way, just so it's clear - I lost a brother to drugs so I
> absolutely HATE drug users. But I'm not into making them even worse than
> they really are.

I hope that you meant "I hate drug use". I may not be a good Catholic
boy much of the time but that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bit is one
of the few things that I have not deviated from over the years.

jyh.

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

On Mar 6, 1:03 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:08ec59f8-b4ca-457a-b44d-54fb20fa625c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > ASO's decision to exclude Astana from it's events is quite petty.
> > Furthermore it is another example of guilt by innuendo, which has done
> > so much damage to cycling. It is unfaair at this point to exclude
> > Astana from the TDF. If the ASO has concerns about some riders on
> > Astana that is one thing, but to exclude the whole team is unjust.
>
> The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
> that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".

It seems as though that the ASO is excluding any riders who are even
tainted with a investigation regardless of whether they have been
cleared or not..

[Keith]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:03:17 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

><hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:08ec59f8-b4ca-457a-b44d-54fb20fa625c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> ASO's decision to exclude Astana from it's events is quite petty.
>> Furthermore it is another example of guilt by innuendo, which has done
>> so much damage to cycling. It is unfaair at this point to exclude
>> Astana from the TDF. If the ASO has concerns about some riders on
>> Astana that is one thing, but to exclude the whole team is unjust.
>
>The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
>that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".

Prudhomme explained why Astana was excluded, they just don't trust
them anymore, can't really blame them, eh after what happened in 2006
and 2007

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 6, 1:12*pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? *It's the only
> > way many countires can get support for the sport. *Look at the
> > struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport.
>
> dumbass,
>
> nothing is wrong with olympic sports and the government support it
> gets. but the objective then is different than professional sports,
> which are meant to generate revenue and not operate off of grants.
>
> > And it did
> > give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. *You can't say the
> > traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
> > encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
> > attacks.
>
> yes, but you can tell by the tone of comments here and the tone of
> letters to cyclingnews, velonews that peanut gallery fans aren't
> really against doping. they see the current crackdown as the rights of
> their hero athletes being trampled on by mean old bureaucrats.
>
> so from the financial health of the professional side of the sport it
> makes sense to drop the WADA compliance and institute an NFL-like drug
> policy, ie. the way it used to be.

Re pro vs Olympic sports. I'm not convinced the object is that much
different in each. The rewards sure are, but dads are doping their
kids in in-line skating, and veteran pro cyclists still get all
excited if there's a noisy crowd. That doesn't sound so purely
mercenary to me. Plus it's a friggin' hard way to make a living.
Such a physical job could not possibly demand so much if there wasn't
an intrinsic appeal.

Even leagues are not so different in some repects: the nor-am pro
leagues look the other way in doping just like the UCI did, and
amateur athletics fed'ns pocketed the athletes appearance fees in the
60's and 70's 'to keep them amateur'.

Olympic sports have been full of non-'amateurs' since the Olympics
began. Cdn Olympian runner Bruce Kidd told me thought the guys who
trained twice a day in the 60's were raising the bar to impossible
levels. The east block certainly went that route; I think the opening
of the Olympics has made it more interesting because there are fewer
asterisks, at least there will be with decent doping control.

I'd argue that one system allows us at least to confront problems in
sport, and not simply sweep it under the 'that's entertainment' rug,
then wonder why the sales of PED's to high school studetns is through
the roof, or hell, the Enrons keep coming.

Re WADA, yes there are problems with it, but they have succeeded in
putting it on the agenda (eg UNESCO and Congress) and exposing the
hypocrisy in the sport leadership. Doping was rife in cycling, and
Festina showed the UCI wasn't much interested in dealing with it. The
premature guilty judgements are done by cycling not WADA, and I think
are just part of the scramble to re-establish credibility.

[Tom Kunich]

"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d201t3dll3u2a14slu7cr7hlo75t7c0r4f@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:03:17 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>><hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:08ec59f8-b4ca-457a-b44d-54fb20fa625c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> ASO's decision to exclude Astana from it's events is quite petty.
>>> Furthermore it is another example of guilt by innuendo, which has done
>>> so much damage to cycling. It is unfaair at this point to exclude
>>> Astana from the TDF. If the ASO has concerns about some riders on
>>> Astana that is one thing, but to exclude the whole team is unjust.
>>
>>The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
>>that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".
>
> Prudhomme explained why Astana was excluded, they just don't trust
> them anymore, can't really blame them, eh after what happened in 2006
> and 2007

Does the name, "High Road" ring any bells?

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:03:17 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> ><hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:08ec59f8-b4ca-457a-b44d-54fb20fa625c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> ASO's decision to exclude Astana from it's events is quite petty.
> >> Furthermore it is another example of guilt by innuendo, which has done
> >> so much damage to cycling. It is unfaair at this point to exclude
> >> Astana from the TDF. If the ASO has concerns about some riders on
> >> Astana that is one thing, but to exclude the whole team is unjust.
>
> >The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
> >that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".
>
> Prudhomme explained why Astana was excluded, they just don't trust
> them anymore, can't really blame them, eh after what happened in 2006
> and 2007

If this the case then ASO needs to spell out what changes in Astana
they want to see.

[Tom Kunich]

"jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:jyh-5CB358.00401507032008@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <13t0mugmvqe28dd@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> And by the way, just so it's clear - I lost a brother to drugs so I
>> absolutely HATE drug users. But I'm not into making them even worse than
>> they really are.
>
> I hope that you meant "I hate drug use". I may not be a good Catholic
> boy much of the time but that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bit is one
> of the few things that I have not deviated from over the years.

I mistyped that.

[Donald Munro]

jean-yves hervé wrote:
> To this day I have not yet read any good argument in favor of the Pro
> Tour, anything that could make me think that maybe the Pro Tour is good
> for cycling after all.

The Pro Tour isn't good for cycling, but its good for the UCI since they
get lots of money in return for doing essentially nothing. And if the UCI
bans all the Paris Nide riders on Pro Tour teams , it might be interesting
if there teams sued the UCI to get their money back.

[Keith]

>I agree that this is an important part of the problem. Imagine that you
>are at the helm of ASO, which means that you are running (between other
>things) the TdF and Paris-Nice. Obviously, the TdF is the one that
>almost every team want to participate to. And now you see UCI come up
>with this Pro Tour contraption and state that
> (1) you must allow all Pro Tour teams to participate to the TdF;
> (2) Pro Tour teams must participate to all races UCI says are
> mandatory;
> (3) UCI says that Paris-Nice is not one of these mandatory
> Pro Tour races and UCI might impose another competion
> in the same time period.

You have to wonder why they would do something like that, Paris-Nice
is one of of the most famous races in the world.

>So, basically, UCI is using the pull of your own main event to hurt your
>other races. Why should ASO go along with this? (the same obviously
>applies to the organizers of the Giro and the Vuelta).
>
>To this day I have not yet read any good argument in favor of the Pro
>Tour, anything that could make me think that maybe the Pro Tour is good
>for cycling after all.

Well the general idea was to get things organized for the benefit of
all, like killing doping in the bud...I think we know what happened
with that...

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 7, 12:29*am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> jean-yves hervé wrote:
> > To this day I have not yet read any good argument in favor of the Pro
> > Tour, anything that could make me think that maybe the Pro Tour is good
> > for cycling after all.
>
> The Pro Tour isn't good for cycling, but its good for the UCI since they
> get lots of money in return for doing essentially nothing. And if the UCI
> bans all the Paris Nide riders on Pro Tour teams , it might be interesting
> if there teams sued the UCI to get their money back.

Not to defend it, but for clarifciation, wasn't the pro tour about
making sponsorship of a team more attractive by guaranteeing entry to
the major events (boy that backfired with Unibet eh?), and teasm big
enough to guarantee a team in all the big races. In principle it
makes sense, so a sponsor doeesn't see their investment wasted in
small races and on the sidelines, and the big races get all the big
teams.

On the other hand ASO wants a promotion and relegation system like
football (soccer). So why couldn't a protour work with say 14 or 16
Div 1 licenses, and then 16 div 2 licenses, etc. Top team(s) in div
2 moves up each year, bottom team(s) moves down. Other than not
getting the guaranteed four years as now, why couldn't that work? All
but the bottom team would get at least two years before downgrading.
Still too risky for the big sponsorship $?

I can see a main difference: in soccer the teams get revenue from
tickets if they suck or not. There's no source of revenue in cycling
other than the sponsor, which needs TV exposure to make it worthwhile,
which means the big races, which have TV.

[Keith]

>> >The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
>> >that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".
>>
>> Prudhomme explained why Astana was excluded, they just don't trust
>> them anymore, can't really blame them, eh after what happened in 2006
>> and 2007
>
>If this the case then ASO needs to spell out what changes in Astana
>they want to see.

They did, they said, if Astana can stay out of trouble in 2008 we'll
revisit in 2009. I think that at this point there is nothing else they
can do, the "proof is in the pudding".

I think Bruyneel needs to go away too, he and his chum LA are largely
responsible for what happened to cycliing since 1999.

[jean-yves herve]

In article <0dc2t31qn4a6q45d4730vauein3m4giguq@4ax.com>,
Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> >I agree that this is an important part of the problem. Imagine that you
> >are at the helm of ASO, which means that you are running (between other
> >things) the TdF and Paris-Nice. Obviously, the TdF is the one that
> >almost every team want to participate to. And now you see UCI come up
> >with this Pro Tour contraption and state that
> > (1) you must allow all Pro Tour teams to participate to the TdF;
> > (2) Pro Tour teams must participate to all races UCI says are
> > mandatory;
> > (3) UCI says that Paris-Nice is not one of these mandatory
> > Pro Tour races and UCI might impose another competion
> > in the same time period.
>
> You have to wonder why they would do something like that, Paris-Nice
> is one of of the most famous races in the world.

Look at the list of ProTour races:

<http://www.uciprotour.com/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTUyODI>

Eneco Tour, Vatenfall Cyclassics, and the nebulous "La Finale" (even the
Tour of Poland and the Tour down Under for that matter). these are the
races that UCI says every ProTour team must participate to. Some of
these races are completely new creations. Obviously that puts them in
competition with older, more prestigious competitions. As an example,
setting the date for the new gimmick "La Finale" one week before
Paris-Tours will probably weaken the latter. Paris-Tours might not be
as famous as Paris-Nice, but it's nevertheless one of the true classics.


> >So, basically, UCI is using the pull of your own main event to hurt your
> >other races. Why should ASO go along with this? (the same obviously
> >applies to the organizers of the Giro and the Vuelta).
> >
> >To this day I have not yet read any good argument in favor of the Pro
> >Tour, anything that could make me think that maybe the Pro Tour is good
> >for cycling after all.
>
> Well the general idea was to get things organized for the benefit of
> all, like killing doping in the bud...I think we know what happened
> with that...

The UCI Pro Tour site says:

"The UCI ProTour groups together the best races, the biggest teams and
the best riders in the world. It is an international calendar with an
individual ranking, a team ranking and a country ranking.

UCI ProTeams have all obtained a UCI ProTour licence, giving them the
assurance and obligation of taking part in all the races of the UCI
ProTour calendar. Only teams who respect a series of very strict
criteria - sporting quality of their team, respect of ethics, legal and
financial compliance - can benefit from this right.

By ensuring the professionalism of all those involved, the UCI ProTour
gives top level cycling greater stability and helps to improve the
quality of the racing. Currently, 16 teams have a sponsor until at least
2008 , or even longer, six of which until 2010 or beyond. New sponsors
have signed up this year and others have expressed an interest for the
future."


I don't think that sponsor stability is any better now that before the
ProTour.

jyh.

[Bob Schwartz]

Keith wrote:
> I think Bruyneel needs to go away too, he and his chum LA are largely
> responsible for what happened to cycliing since 1999.

Laff, is that you?

Bob Schwartz

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

On Mar 7, 4:18 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >The fact seems to be that Astana now doesn't even have any of those riders
> >> >that ASO might exclude. That's why they're denying entry to the "team".
>
> >> Prudhomme explained why Astana was excluded, they just don't trust
> >> them anymore, can't really blame them, eh after what happened in 2006
> >> and 2007
>
> >If this the case then ASO needs to spell out what changes in Astana
> >they want to see.
>
> They did, they said, if Astana can stay out of trouble in 2008 we'll
> revisit in 2009. I think that at this point there is nothing else they
> can do, the "proof is in the pudding".
>
> I think Bruyneel needs to go away too, he and his chum LA are largely
> responsible for what happened to cycliing since 1999.

Lance and Johan are responsible for increasing the popularity of the
cycling. The only possible aspersion with Johan is a lack of judgment
in PR terms.
On possible theory is that the ASO is tired of seeing Discovery and
now Contador dominate cycling for almost a decade. So Astana could be
a easy excuse for the ASO.

[Donald Munro]

Keith wrote:
>> I think Bruyneel needs to go away too, he and his chum LA are largely
>> responsible for what happened to cycliing since 1999.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Laff, is that you?

Can't you recognise your own zombie processes when they fork ?

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 7, 10:02*am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
The
> premature guilty judgements are done by cycling not WADA, and I think
> are just part of the scramble to re-establish credibility.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Let me edit that; Pound (vs WADA) certainly let his opinion be known
before any process was done. But it was cycling that created the
'investigation rule' and the 'give back your money rule'. In my view,
Pound was justified because the wilfull blindness was the norm; we
needed the shock to get governments attention.

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:

> Re pro vs Olympic sports. I'm not convinced the object is that much
> different in each.

You misinterpret my point. It's not that there's some intrinsic
difference between amateur and pro sports (vis a vis doping or
commercial interests) it's that the society of professional cyclists
has voluntarily hamstrung itself by adopting a third party's set of
standards.

it's like the owner of a filthy restaurant voluntarily agreeing to
have the health inspectors inspect his place when he knows he can't
meet the standard. he's sure to get shut down. verbruggen obviously
knew that was the situation which is why he stalled on signing on to
wada.

> Re WADA, yes there are problems with it, but they have succeeded in
> putting it on the agenda (eg UNESCO and Congress) and exposing the
> hypocrisy in the sport leadership. Doping was rife in cycling, and
> Festina showed the UCI wasn't much interested in dealing with it.

the festina affair for all intents was the same as puerto and when it
happened the implicated riders were quickly suspended for 6 months and
those that wanted to were able to reintegrate into top teams.

i'm not judging whether 6 mos. is adequate or not, but even though all
the evidence was circumstantial, it was a done deal. sentence served
and everyone goes on.

and i have reason to think that was enough to have an impact on the
community of french cycling (jv's "no needles quote", their sudden
decline in french performance, the relative lack of french doping
cases since).

that sounds like a dictatorship and virenque and a lot of others at
the time said how unjust it was, but in business that's how things get
done. this is also other pro sports deal with serious and unforeseen
problems (eg. david stern suspends ron artest for the rest of the
season).

what you have now in cycling is a pseudo-court system, and the only
acceptable evidence are test results and the defense teams of riders
have been very good about casting doubt on the system. there isn't an
effective way to deal with circumstantial evidence, and when a rider
dodges one court another one interlopes (CONI in the case of basso,
the german legal system in the case of ullrich).

so two years and how many hearings, testimonies and arbitrations down
the line puerto is still an open case and various implicated riders
are either: unpunished, punished in some concrete way or in some
limbo.

> The
> premature guilty judgements are done by cycling not WADA, and I think
> are just part of the scramble to re-establish credibility.

what premature judgments are you talking about ?

[Bill C]

On Mar 7, 1:27*pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:02*am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> The
>
> > premature guilty judgements are done by cycling not WADA, and I think
> > are just part of the scramble to re-establish credibility.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Let me edit that; Pound (vs WADA) certainly let his opinion be known
> before any process was done. *But it was cycling that created the
> 'investigation rule' and the 'give back your money rule'. In my view,
> Pound was justified because the wilfull blindness was the norm; we
> needed the shock to get governments attention.

The ends justify any and all means, and screw the "collateral damage",
opinion noted.
What we really need is a Wada/UCI containment camp where the riders
and teams would have to live, for their own good, and the good of the
sport of course. There they could be monitored and controlled 24/7,
all fed the same diet, to protect the balance of competition. All
visitors would of course be controlled to make sure none of them were
allowed contact with anyone who could possibly bring disrepute on the
sport. All forms of outside contact would be totally controlled to
prevent them from receiving any possibly questionable items or
information. This also would only allow positive news, comments, and
opinions out of the camp for the world to hear of course. The riders
would also be available 24/7 for any of the sponsors whims and needs,
at a reduced rate for the rider of course because they need to, at
least, subsidize their stay at the wonderful facility, and Greg can't
support all of it.
Perfect solution.
Bill C

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 7, 10:39*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:27*pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 10:02*am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> > The
>
> > > premature guilty judgements are done by cycling not WADA, and I think
> > > are just part of the scramble to re-establish credibility.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Let me edit that; Pound (vs WADA) certainly let his opinion be known
> > before any process was done. *But it was cycling that created the
> > 'investigation rule' and the 'give back your money rule'. In my view,
> > Pound was justified because the wilfull blindness was the norm; we
> > needed the shock to get governments attention.
>
> The ends justify any and all means, and screw the "collateral damage",
> opinion noted.
> * What we really need is a Wada/UCI containment camp where the riders
> and teams would have to live, for their own good, and the good of the
> sport of course. There they could be monitored and controlled 24/7,
> all fed the same diet, to protect the balance of competition. All
> visitors would of course be controlled to make sure none of them were
> allowed contact with anyone who could possibly bring disrepute on the
> sport. All forms of outside contact would be totally controlled to
> prevent them from receiving any possibly questionable items or
> information. This also would only allow positive news, comments, and
> opinions out of the camp for the world to hear of course. The riders
> would also be available 24/7 for any of the sponsors whims and needs,
> at a reduced rate for the rider of course because they need to, at
> least, subsidize their stay at the wonderful facility, and Greg can't
> support all of it.
> *Perfect solution.
> *Bill C

C'mon Bill. You must see that we didn't even enforce the rules we
had. At least we should try that before we move to your 'Truman Show'
scenario.

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 7, 8:43*pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Re pro vs Olympic sports. *I'm not convinced the object is that much
> > different in each.
>
> You misinterpret my point. It's not that there's some intrinsic
> difference between amateur and pro sports (vis a vis doping or
> commercial interests) it's that the society of professional cyclists
> has voluntarily hamstrung itself by adopting a third party's set of
> standards.
>
> it's like the owner of a filthy restaurant voluntarily agreeing to
> have the health inspectors inspect his place when he knows he can't
> meet the standard. he's sure to get shut down. verbruggen obviously
> knew that was the situation which is why he stalled on signing on to
> wada.
>
> > Re WADA, yes there are problems with it, but they have succeeded in
> > putting it on the agenda (eg UNESCO and Congress) and exposing the
> > hypocrisy in the sport leadership. *Doping was rife in cycling, and
> > Festina showed the UCI wasn't much interested in dealing with it.
>
> the festina affair for all intents was the same as puerto and when it
> happened the implicated riders were quickly suspended for 6 months and
> those that wanted to were able to reintegrate into top teams.
>
> i'm not judging whether 6 mos. is adequate or not, but even though all
> the evidence was circumstantial, it was a done deal. sentence served
> and everyone goes on.
>
> and i have reason to think that was enough to have an impact on the
> community of french cycling (jv's "no needles quote", their sudden
> decline in french performance, the relative lack of french doping
> cases since).
>
> that sounds like a dictatorship and virenque and a lot of others at
> the time said how unjust it was, but in business that's how things get
> done. this is also other pro sports deal with serious and unforeseen
> problems (eg. david stern suspends ron artest for the rest of the
> season).
>
> what you have now in cycling is a pseudo-court system, and the only
> acceptable evidence are test results and the defense teams of riders
> have been very good about casting doubt on the system. there isn't an
> effective way to deal with circumstantial evidence, and when a rider
> dodges one court another one interlopes (CONI in the case of basso,
> the german legal system in the case of ullrich).
>
> so two years and how many hearings, testimonies and arbitrations down
> the line puerto is still an open case and various implicated riders
> are *either: unpunished, punished in some concrete way or in some
> limbo.
>
> > The
> > premature guilty judgements are done by cycling not WADA, and I think
> > are just part of the scramble to re-establish credibility.
>
> what premature judgments are you talking about ?

I was referring to the ethics clause, and the suspension if a rider is
under investigation.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <151aa0ea-e239-4b5e-a145-98774947f5be@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Re pro vs Olympic sports. I'm not convinced the object is that much
> > different in each.
>
> You misinterpret my point. It's not that there's some intrinsic
> difference between amateur and pro sports (vis a vis doping or
> commercial interests) it's that the society of professional cyclists
> has voluntarily hamstrung itself by adopting a third party's set of
> standards.

They've hamstrung themselves in an attempt to get into an event that really
doesn't benefit them very much, if at all. It was a pointless exercise.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 7, 8:43*pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> You misinterpret my point. It's not that there's some intrinsic
> difference between amateur and pro sports (vis a vis doping or
> commercial interests) it's that the society of professional cyclists
> has voluntarily hamstrung itself by adopting a third party's set of
> standards.
>
> it's like the owner of a filthy restaurant voluntarily agreeing to
> have the health inspectors inspect his place when he knows he can't
> meet the standard. he's sure to get shut down. verbruggen obviously
> knew that was the situation which is why he stalled on signing on to
> wada.
>
Good anology. I'm still unconvinced about cycling's ability to ignore
the Olympics. While accepting WADA to get in the Olympics may have
been the immediate incentive, the scrutiny that other sports are
receiving, eg. euro pro soccer (it's U23 in the Olympics) suggests
that cycling wasn't going to escape the spotlight even if it declined
the WADA code and stepped out of the Olympics.

And that also suggests that the pros are somehow seperate from their
national federations. Evidently the majority of national federations
felt it was worth joining WADA and staying in the Olympics. Does your
scenario suggest that the main Euro pro national federations would
secede and run their own league? Or does it suggest the pro teams
would secede and form a nor-am pro league? I dunno, I think the way
Bettini highlighted his gold medal sugests he (or his agent) know that
the Olympics matter to a significant number of people. If you're a
pro, your sponsors still care about eyeballs, and the Olympics draw
eyeballs. It's also possibly a diffferent market (than the pro
cycling audience) the sponsor wouldn't mind being seen by.

[Jeff Jones]

On Mar 9, 6:52 pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:

> Not to defend it, but for clarifciation, wasn't the pro tour about
> making sponsorship of a team more attractive by guaranteeing entry to
> the major events (boy that backfired with Unibet eh?), and teasm big
> enough to guarantee a team in all the big races. In principle it
> makes sense, so a sponsor doeesn't see their investment wasted in
> small races and on the sidelines, and the big races get all the big
> teams.
>
That's what it was about from the UCI perspective. The problem was
that they didn't actually ask ASO about it before introducing it. "Oh
yeah, we'll have a cut of your TV rights too..."

> On the other hand ASO wants a promotion and relegation system like
> football (soccer). So why couldn't a protour work with say 14 or 16
> Div 1 licenses, and then 16 div 2 licenses, etc. Top team(s) in div
> 2 moves up each year, bottom team(s) moves down. Other than not
> getting the guaranteed four years as now, why couldn't that work? All
> but the bottom team would get at least two years before downgrading.
> Still too risky for the big sponsorship $?
>
That's more or less how it used to work, without the four year
guarantee. And that's probably how it'll end up, once the pissing
contest stops.

Jeff