30 minute McQuaid Interview on Eurosport

[Keith]

http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/

The guy is clearly out of his depth...

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:1vt6v31npha22trans9l2dbj4ojivm8rc1@4ax.com,
Keith <nospam@nospam.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/
>
> The guy is clearly out of his depth...

What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being
anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he
praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern
professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are
big boosters of UCI. I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded
the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour.
All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and
thinking.

So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost
the war.
--
--
Sandy

" La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
pousse des impôts "
- Clémenceau

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 2, 5:11*am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/
>
> The guy is clearly out of his depth...

I thought he sounded stronger than I expected. The stats on out-of-
competition tests were interesting: 150 two years ago, 1000 last year,
10,000 this year.(did I hear those numbers correctly?)

What I thought was missing was the reporter asking McQuaid to
understand the impact on the Tour of the fumbled whereabouts record of
Rassmussen. Surely this must have been a significant blow to the
Tour, and the UCI was supposed to be managing it...with a paper
system!?

I think the ASO problem goes back to mismanaging the doping issue, and
now the Tour wants to do something to restore it's image, and now
that's put it outside the UCI rules.

A better question would have been: " Don't you think the Tour was
justified in doing something to address the doping scandals at the
Tour, and don't you think the UCI contributed to the problem by having
such an inefffective anti-doping program up until now?"

And Pat should have said: " You're right, we discovered problems,
we've fixed them, and the Tour should work with us, not attack us."
But of course that would have raised the question of whether perhaps
**** Pound was right all along, and would not have been the right
thing to say when Hein has twisted your arm into suing him.....What a
tangled web we weave....

[Bill C]

On Apr 2, 12:01*pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1vt6v31npha22trans9l2dbj4ojivm8rc1@4ax.com,
> Keith <nos...@nospam.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> >http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/
>
> > The guy is clearly out of his depth...
>
> What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being
> anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he
> praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern
> professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are
> big boosters of UCI. *I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded
> the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour..
> All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and
> thinking.
>
> So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost
> the war.
> --
> --
> Sandy
>
> " La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
> pousse des impôts "
> - Clémenceau

He sounds seriously bat**** crazy!
It's a great capitalistic conspiracy with the evil French
puppetmasters animating all the characters against the saintly UCI.
Bill C

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Apr 2, 12:01*pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:1vt6v31npha22trans9l2dbj4ojivm8rc1@4ax.com,
>> Keith <nos...@nospam.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>> >http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/
>>
>> > The guy is clearly out of his depth...
>>
>> What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being
>> anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he
>> praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern
>> professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are
>> big boosters of UCI. *I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded
>> the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour.
>> All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and
>> thinking.
>>
>> So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost
>> the war.
>> --
>> --
>> Sandy
>>
>> " La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
>> pousse des impôts "
>> - Clémenceau
>
>He sounds seriously bat**** crazy!
> It's a great capitalistic conspiracy with the evil French
>puppetmasters animating all the characters against the saintly UCI.

The riders really need to get together, like now, or last year.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 2, 3:29*pm, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:

> The riders really need to get together, like now, or last year.

A decent intro to the theory of groups:

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-printing-appendix/dp/0674537513/

[Bob Schwartz]

mtb Dad wrote:
> And Pat should have said: " You're right, we discovered problems,
> we've fixed them, and the Tour should work with us, not attack us."
> But of course that would have raised the question of whether perhaps
> **** Pound was right all along, and would not have been the right
> thing to say when Hein has twisted your arm into suing him.....What a
> tangled web we weave....

Dumbass,

Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?

Bob Schwartz

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 12:01*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Dumbass,
>
> Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
> disagreement has money at the root?
>
> Bob Schwartz

Bob

Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?

I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)

Lister

[Bob Schwartz]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
>> disagreement has money at the root?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
> Bob
>
> Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
> cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. Yeah, yeah, I know the
> Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
> why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?
>
> I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)
>
> Lister

You don't get it.

Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
The disagreement is about money.

And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
The disagreement is about money.

The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
are really talking about money. Poorly managed
doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
disagreement is all about money.

Bob Schwartz

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 1:06*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Dumbass,
>
> >> Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
> >> disagreement has money at the root?
>
> >> Bob Schwartz
>
> > Bob
>
> > Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
> > cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. *Yeah, yeah, I know the
> > Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
> > why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?
>
> > I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)
>
> > Lister
>
> You don't get it.
>
> Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
> UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
> access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
> The disagreement is about money.
>
> And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
> so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
> WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
> The disagreement is about money.
>
> The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
> money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
> are really talking about money. Poorly managed
> doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
> disagreement is all about money.
>
> Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If poor doping control costs the sport money, it's about doping
enforcement. What don't you get?

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 1:06*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> do with cleaning up the sport."

What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

It's about managing it
> so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
> WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.

Funny WADA has sounded pretty much in support of the Tour position to
me.

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 1:06*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
> UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
> access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
> The disagreement is about money.


This is a pretty cynical view of the Pro tour. Is that it? Just a
cash grab by the UCI, with ASO using the doping argument to fight
back? What about the teams having some kind of guarantee they get
into races, that riders get paid, that teams have job security (i.e.
the 4 year term) and the other arguments for the Protour? I'd argue
those are still valid arguments, but that ASO had a point about
reducing the number to 18 and having some kind of relegation/
advancement system for the next level down.

Still, all the political and and public opinion on doping counts for
nothing? Governments are just being lead by the nose to the anti-
doping position by the ASO because of it's fight with the UCI? That
sounds like stretch to me.

[Michael Press]

In article
<f4d5bfe0-27b5-40be-a55a-f016f459f302@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:06*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Dumbass,
>>
>>>> Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
>>>> disagreement has money at the root?
>>
>>> Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
>>> cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. *Yeah, yeah, I know the
>>> Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
>>> why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?
>>
>>> I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)
>>
>>> Lister
>>
>> You don't get it.
>>
>> Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
>> UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
>> access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
>> The disagreement is about money.
>>
>> And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>> do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
>> so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
>> WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
>> The disagreement is about money.
>>
>> The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
>> money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
>> are really talking about money. Poorly managed
>> doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
>> disagreement is all about money.
>
> If poor doping control costs the sport money, it's about doping
> enforcement. What don't you get?

I think it is about money, not dope. The only concern
anybody in the governing bodies has about dope, and few
enough care about dope at all, is to have an appearance
of caring about dope.

--
Michael Press

[Bob Schwartz]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>> do with cleaning up the sport."
>
> What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
> baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
> it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
> society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
> popped.

Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?

What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?

Bob Schwartz

[Michael Press]

In article
<5ccf4670-a4a1-4ac8-a8cf-bbb206dde6bd@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:

> On Apr 3, 1:06*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> > do with cleaning up the sport."
>
> What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
> baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
> it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
> society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
> popped.

Sports fans want racing, not doping stories.
Fans of dope and scandal want stories about rampant doping.
You are confusing the two.

> It's about managing it
> > so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
> > WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
>
> Funny WADA has sounded pretty much in support of the Tour position to
> me.

--
Michael Press

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT), mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 1:06*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>> do with cleaning up the sport."
>
>What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
>baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
>doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
>it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
>society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
>popped.
>
> It's about managing it
>> so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
>> WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
>
>Funny WADA has sounded pretty much in support of the Tour position to
>me.

That's absurd. WADA has been nothing but coldly indifferent to to the image of
the sport and its events. From where I sit, their only priority is to try to
prove riders are doping - preferably in a big headline sorta way. They have no
apparent interest in preventing doping or in fair races or any other damn thing.
If WADA catches guys doping they're happy. If not they are sad. If nobody were
to dope that would mess them up, too.

Their behavior is entirely like that of a lazy cop. Do nothing but get your one
arrest a week so everyone thinks you're working. Oh, and make damn sure you get
a solid conviction rate on those rare arrests, say whatever you must.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 3, 1:56*pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:

> If society doesn't want doping and says
> so by not buying from businesses associated
> with it, it IS about doping. *It's one case
> where we all win, business and society. *

We could hold hands, burn candles, and sing Kumbaya.

"**** you and your 'society.'" -- Ben Franklin
"Hang people by quoting their own words, not those of others." -- Ben
Mambo

See how leftists hate free speech and want hang people for only
talking? HUMAN HATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 2:07*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> >> do with cleaning up the sport."
>
> > What? *Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
> > baseball, how can you seperate the two? *If society doesn't want
> > doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
> > it IS about doping. *It's one case where we all win, business and
> > society. *Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
> > popped.
>
> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
> in July?
>
> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
> a doping scandal? Can you name one?
>
> Bob Schwartz

So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?

[Bob Schwartz]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>>>> do with cleaning up the sport."
>>> What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
>>> baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
>>> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
>>> it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
>>> society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
>>> popped.
>> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
>> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
>> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
>> in July?
>>
>> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
>> a doping scandal? Can you name one?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
> So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
> they didn't see a threat to their business?

I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
with a doping scandal?

As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.

Are you going to answer my question?

Bob Schwartz

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:093c9d41-20c8-4d54-a1af-2cf7183c312b@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>>>> do with cleaning up the sport."
>>
>>> What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
>>> baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
>>> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
>>> it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
>>> society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
>>> popped.
>>
>> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
>> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
>> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
>> in July?
>>
>> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
>> a doping scandal? Can you name one?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
> So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
> they didn't see a threat to their business?

This is taking a wrong turn. France is IMHO the country the most dedicated
to Maoist confessional moralizing. It's in the culture, in the money, in
the cycling. And like the original, confessions give rise to retribution,
not to absolution. In addition, promoting the anti-doping stance promotes
tourism (small "t") and thus garners bureaucratic and governmental approval.
Remember, please, that the trend took itself up a whole level of intensity
under Marie Georges-Buffet. And she went rarely to any sort of sporting
event.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

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

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 2:46*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> mtb Dad wrote:
> >>> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> >>>> do with cleaning up the sport."
> >>> What? *Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
> >>> baseball, how can you seperate the two? *If society doesn't want
> >>> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
> >>> it IS about doping. *It's one case where we all win, business and
> >>> society. *Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
> >>> popped.
> >> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
> >> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
> >> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
> >> in July?
>
> >> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
> >> a doping scandal? Can you name one?
>
> >> Bob Schwartz
>
> > So is it money or not? *Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
> > they didn't see a threat to their business?
>
> I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
> again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
> with a doping scandal?
>
> As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
> poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
> WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.
>
> Are you going to answer my question?
>
> Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bob

I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). But would the current
ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
weren't an issue? I doubt it. But then, you would argue that's only
about money too. I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
just their myopic habit.

How would you define the congressional hearings? About money or
doping?

Like this quote here:

"Baseball needs to fix these problems, change this culture,, Or, and
this is a promise not a threat, Congress will do it for you."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080115/spor...doping_politics

Lister

[Tom Kunich]

"Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CecJj.25$mB3.15@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
> again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
> with a doping scandal?

When was the last time you heard of the Spanish watch company Lotus?

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:32:41 -0700 (PDT), mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 2:46*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>> > On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> mtb Dad wrote:
>> >>> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>> >>>> do with cleaning up the sport."
>> >>> What? *Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
>> >>> baseball, how can you seperate the two? *If society doesn't want
>> >>> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
>> >>> it IS about doping. *It's one case where we all win, business and
>> >>> society. *Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
>> >>> popped.
>> >> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
>> >> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
>> >> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
>> >> in July?
>>
>> >> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
>> >> a doping scandal? Can you name one?
>>
>> >> Bob Schwartz
>>
>> > So is it money or not? *Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
>> > they didn't see a threat to their business?
>>
>> I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
>> again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
>> with a doping scandal?
>>
>> As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
>> poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
>> WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.
>>
>> Are you going to answer my question?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Bob
>
>I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
>have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). But would the current
>ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
>weren't an issue? I doubt it. But then, you would argue that's only
>about money too. I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
>ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
>just their myopic habit.
>
>How would you define the congressional hearings? About money or
>doping?

C - A bunch of self-inflated morons in congress who like to hear their own
voices and meddle in the lives of others.

[Bob Schwartz]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:46 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>> Are you going to answer my question?
>
> Bob
>
> I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
> have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). But would the current
> ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
> weren't an issue? I doubt it. But then, you would argue that's only
> about money too. I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
> ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
> just their myopic habit.
>
> How would you define the congressional hearings? About money or
> doping?
>
> Like this quote here:
>
> "Baseball needs to fix these problems, change this culture,, Or, and
> this is a promise not a threat, Congress will do it for you."
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080115/spor...doping_politics

You didn't answer the question. Because you can't.

No sponsor loses business because the contracts are all written
so that the athlete assumes all the risk. When **** hits the fan
the sponsor says "Tsk, tsk" and bails with clean hands. The
athlete takes the hit.

You are not taking a reality based approach. You look at this
like everyone thinks like you when they clearly don't. But no
matter.

Let me rephrase the the question. Have *you* ever let a doping
scandal impact a business decision about a sponsor's product?
And I don't mean buying someone else's kit even though you
like the Astana colors. I mean avoiding a US Postal shipping
connection because LANCE was on the ****. Something like that.
Ever happen?

That's a direct question. Please, no dodging.

Bob Schwartz

[Carl Sundquist]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:XZSdnefUE9HJ_WjanZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> "Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:CecJj.25$mB3.15@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
>> again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
>> with a doping scandal?
>
> When was the last time you heard of the Spanish watch company Lotus?
>

If they had been a watchmaker of any significance, somebody would be hawking
knockoffs on newsgroups.

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 4:32*pm, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:32:41 -0700 (PDT), mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 2:46*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> >wrote:
> >> mtb Dad wrote:
> >> > On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> mtb Dad wrote:
> >> >>> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> >> >>>> do with cleaning up the sport."
> >> >>> What? *Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
> >> >>> baseball, how can you seperate the two? *If society doesn't want
> >> >>> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
> >> >>> it IS about doping. *It's one case where we all win, business and
> >> >>> society. *Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
> >> >>> popped.
> >> >> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
> >> >> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
> >> >> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
> >> >> in July?
>
> >> >> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
> >> >> a doping scandal? Can you name one?
>
> >> >> Bob Schwartz
>
> >> > So is it money or not? *Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
> >> > they didn't see a threat to their business?
>
> >> I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
> >> again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
> >> with a doping scandal?
>
> >> As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
> >> poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
> >> WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.
>
> >> Are you going to answer my question?
>
> >> Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Bob
>
> >I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
> >have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). *But would the current
> >ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
> >weren't an issue? *I doubt it. *But then, you would argue that's only
> >about money too. *I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
> >ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
> >just their myopic habit.
>
> >How would you define the congressional hearings? *About money or
> >doping?
>
> C - A bunch of self-inflated morons in congress who like to hear their own
> voices and meddle in the lives of others.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's worth noting they get elected to those jobs. Even if you're
cynical, they must see some potential for approval from voters for
that stance.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <26qav31gv92geupkjnbq37q779h6o4g3se@4ax.com>, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:32:41 -0700 (PDT), mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net>
> wrote:

> >How would you define the congressional hearings? About money or
> >doping?
>
> C - A bunch of self-inflated morons in congress who like to hear their own
> voices and meddle in the lives of others.

D - A bunch of guys who want to hang out with sports heros and tell them how
awesome they are.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[TM]

>
> If they had been a watchmaker of any significance, somebody would be
> hawking knockoffs on newsgroups.
>

!

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 5:06*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:56*pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > If society doesn't want doping and says
> > so by not buying from businesses associated
> > with it, it IS about doping. *It's one case
> > where we all win, business and society. *
>
> We could hold hands, burn candles, and sing Kumbaya.
>
> "**** you and your 'society.'" -- Ben Franklin
> "Hang people by quoting their own words, not those of others." -- Ben
> Mambo
>
> See how leftists hate free speech and want hang people for only
> talking? *HUMAN HATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Huh?

[Tom Kunich]

"mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote in message
news:0363c2d2-a137-4370-8568-03ef842a5eae@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is a pretty cynical view of the Pro tour. Is that it? Just a
> cash grab by the UCI, with ASO using the doping argument to fight
> back? What about the teams having some kind of guarantee they get
> into races, that riders get paid, that teams have job security (i.e.
> the 4 year term) and the other arguments for the Protour? I'd argue
> those are still valid arguments, but that ASO had a point about
> reducing the number to 18 and having some kind of relegation/
> advancement system for the next level down.

All your arguments are completely valid but that doesn't mean that the
actual driving forces behind the actions of ASO and the UCI aren't as
Schwartz suggests.

> Still, all the political and and public opinion on doping counts for
> nothing? Governments are just being lead by the nose to the anti-
> doping position by the ASO because of it's fight with the UCI? That
> sounds like stretch to me.

Don't get the moralizing of a segment of the government with the actions of
commercial interests. They're two different things.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:0363c2d2-a137-4370-8568-03ef842a5eae@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
>> UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
>> access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
>> The disagreement is about money.
>
>
> This is a pretty cynical view of the Pro tour. Is that it? Just a
> cash grab by the UCI, with ASO using the doping argument to fight
> back?

You are starting to catch on ...

> What about the teams having some kind of guarantee they get
> into races, that riders get paid,

Note that the 2007 TdF purse has not been paid, due to the actions of UCI.
So, no guarantee, which was the key reason riders were willing to put up
with the Pro Tour.

> that teams have job security

Teams doesn't mean riders? Riders have about a half-hour notice from the
time someone "suspects" their improper conduct or body chemistry and the end
of a career.

> (i.e. the 4 year term)

No relegation, unlike the earlier collective rider rankings of a prior
season, which made teams much more likely to keep on their best riders.

> and the other arguments for the Protour?

What!? A new colored jersey!!!????

> I'd argue
> those are still valid arguments,

Sorry, but I just demolished each of them, directly.

> but that ASO had a point about
> reducing the number to 18

In the interests of globalization, perhaps 3 teams per continent? You are
far off any logical mark here.

> and having some kind of relegation/
> advancement system for the next level down.

Still not in the works according to the UCI formulae.

> Still, all the political and and public opinion on doping counts for
> nothing? Governments are just being lead by the nose to the anti-
> doping position by the ASO because of it's fight with the UCI? That
> sounds like stretch to me.

Sports junkies are sooooooo much easier to crush than the purveyors,
importers, manufacturers of evil drugs - an unwinnable battle - so yes, they
have some stake in keeping sports doping at the top of the visibility list.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Tom Kunich]

"mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote in message
news:b47d7311-b965-4d2d-a523-5c57cf6928ad@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's worth noting they get elected to those jobs. Even if you're
> cynical, they must see some potential for approval from voters for
> that stance.

What I see is that voters are more likely to vote for a familiar name than
the person behind that name.

[mtb Dad]

On Apr 3, 7:07*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVE.global.net>
wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2:46 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> >> Are you going to answer my question?
>
> > Bob
>
> > I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
> > have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). *But would the current
> > ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
> > weren't an issue? *I doubt it. *But then, you would argue that's only
> > about money too. *I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
> > ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
> > just their myopic habit.
>
> > How would you define the congressional hearings? *About money or
> > doping?
>
> > Like this quote here:
>
> > "Baseball needs to fix these problems, change this culture,, Or, and
> > this is a promise not a threat, Congress will do it for you."
> >http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080115/spor...doping_politics
>
> You didn't answer the question. Because you can't.
>
> No sponsor loses business because the contracts are all written
> so that the athlete assumes all the risk. When **** hits the fan
> the sponsor says "Tsk, tsk" and bails with clean hands. The
> athlete takes the hit.
>
> You are not taking a reality based approach. You look at this
> like everyone thinks like you when they clearly don't. But no
> matter.
>
> Let me rephrase the the question. Have *you* ever let a doping
> scandal impact a business decision about a sponsor's product?
> And I don't mean buying someone else's kit even though you
> like the Astana colors. I mean avoiding a US Postal shipping
> connection because LANCE was on the ****. Something like that.
> Ever happen?
>
> That's a direct question. Please, no dodging.
>
> Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> You didn't answer the question. Because you can't.

Neither can you. I can't say for sure that a sponsor has lost money
because they don't say that. It's like saying 'we blew it, backing
this sport'. Who's going to say that? But it's also equally true
that you can't say sponsors haven't left the sport. Big teams with
winners like Postal, T-Mobile and now CSC have lost their sponsors.
Chipotle has a wealthy backer but not a big commercially-driven
sponsor, AFAIK.

Yes I have made decisions based on doping, small though they are. I
don't buy or have any team kit, nor does my family. I had our club's
jerseys printed with the True Sport logo (truesportpur.ca), which all
the members (30+) seemed to think is a good idea. I have not avoided
USPS, because they are the only ones that can get mail order through
Cdn customs without huge brokerage fees. But I'm Cdn so my use is
minimal.

I am shopping for a Lemond road bike though, my son has an older one
that we re-painted (it was poorly stored) but kept the logos for the
symbolism. I bought a Twin 6 jersey because it offered an alternative
to the Euro-pro trash gear (or is that Euro-trash pro gear)? I shop
for cycling clothing primarily at the Mountain Equipment Coop because
it's quality, plain design and I can avoid the Euro-pro brands.

I will never order the Discovery channel, buy a Trek, anything to do
with Spanish road cycling (maybe if they come up with a Spanish
version of Dopers Suck- Wouldn't that be elegant?), or a subscribe to
a cycling magazine or TV that pretends doping isn't a problem. I
definitely avoid exposing my kids to athletes with doping histories.
I bought a Rocky Mountain mountain bike because they sponsored Alison
Sydor, who has taken a stand on doping.

As for other major expenses, I use Telus, Royal Bank, Chevron, and a
local grocery chain that supports local athletes. But no dopers.

Now, do you still think the congressional committee is irrelevant and
not indicative of Americans' views of doping? (Note I said Americans',
not fans.) How about the Tammy decision? Would they really prosecute
her for lying if her doping was 'just business'? Would they have even
had the BALCO inquiry?

> You are not taking a reality based approach.

Please. Spare us the "it's only about money and everyone else is
dreaming line." Sure money's a factor, but it's not the only one. T-
Mobile said this on quitting: "We have decided to take this step to
distance ourselves and the brand T-Mobile from the latest doping
confessions in sport and more particularly cycling," said Hamid
Akhavan, Chief Executive of Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile unit.(http://
www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2974820,00.html) In fact, they
spent more to get out of their contract early.

[Victor Kan]

On Apr 7, 1:27 pm, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
....
> Chipotle has a wealthy backer but not a big commercially-driven
> sponsor, AFAIK.

Depends what you mean by "big" and "sponsor".

Chipotle is a USD 800+M/year fast food chain.

http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-irhome

But they're not the title sponsor of Slipstream (as USPS, T-Mobile and
CSC were/are for their respective teams).

[Bob Schwartz]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVE.global.net>
> wrote:
>
>> You didn't answer the question. Because you can't.
>
> Neither can you. I can't say for sure that a sponsor has lost money
> because they don't say that. It's like saying 'we blew it, backing
> this sport'. Who's going to say that? But it's also equally true
> that you can't say sponsors haven't left the sport. Big teams with
> winners like Postal, T-Mobile and now CSC have lost their sponsors.
> Chipotle has a wealthy backer but not a big commercially-driven
> sponsor, AFAIK.

Well, how about the timing on that Trek announcement!

I never said sponsors haven't left the sport. Because sponsors come
and go. They always have. Even Merckx, even when he was on top of
the sport, lost sponsors. In fact, that's why sponsors shoulder none
of the risk of doping scandals.

Look at Telekom/T-Mobile. Do you think their business benefited from
the exposure they got from the cycling team? It sure did. And do you
remember who first put them on the international stage in the Tour?
Yep, Mr 60% himself.

I would estimate that if you didn't count us dumbasses in North
America, you would have gotten approximately 0% of cycling fans
believing that he did it on mineral water. Yet Telekom marketing
management didn't have a problem with that. They didn't have a
problem with it until stuff that everyone knew about anyway started
showing up in the media. Then they got out their script and read
the part about outrage and disappointment, bla, bla, bla. And they
walked away, clean as the driven snow.

Athletes shoulder all of the risk.

Hey, did you know that major league baseball set an attendance record
last year? WTF is up with that? Dope, dope, and more dope, and more
fans showed up than ever before.

> Yes I have made decisions based on doping, small though they are. I
> don't buy or have any team kit, nor does my family. I had our club's
> jerseys printed with the True Sport logo (truesportpur.ca), which all
> the members (30+) seemed to think is a good idea. I have not avoided
> USPS, because they are the only ones that can get mail order through
> Cdn customs without huge brokerage fees. But I'm Cdn so my use is
> minimal.
>
> I am shopping for a Lemond road bike though, my son has an older one
> that we re-painted (it was poorly stored) but kept the logos for the
> symbolism. I bought a Twin 6 jersey because it offered an alternative
> to the Euro-pro trash gear (or is that Euro-trash pro gear)? I shop
> for cycling clothing primarily at the Mountain Equipment Coop because
> it's quality, plain design and I can avoid the Euro-pro brands.

Just to be clear, I respect your views on doping in sport. What I'm
dumping on you for is your refusal to believe that the economics
doesn't mirror your personal views, in spite of a mountain of evidence
to the contrary.

> I will never order the Discovery channel, buy a Trek, anything to do
> with Spanish road cycling (maybe if they come up with a Spanish
> version of Dopers Suck- Wouldn't that be elegant?), or a subscribe to
> a cycling magazine or TV that pretends doping isn't a problem. I
> definitely avoid exposing my kids to athletes with doping histories.
> I bought a Rocky Mountain mountain bike because they sponsored Alison
> Sydor, who has taken a stand on doping.

Yeah, those Spaniards are really into the nasty stuff, aren't they?
But do you know where the highest concentration of blood storage
facilities is? Actually, this is probably somewhat dated, but it
used to be Northern Italy. Because of the Turin Olympics.

There is no greater force in the science of doping in sport than the
Olympics. And also no bigger money machine. People love the Olympics,
as long as they don't know the details of how all those larger than
life athletes got to be larger than life.

If Atlanta was the EPO Olympics then surely Beijing will be the
Transfusion Olympics. The Chinese don't do anything in a small way
and I'll bet there is a boatload of money pouring into the supporting
infrastructure.

Can you just imagine how the TV ratings are going to tank this year
as millions of sporting fans worldwide turn away this that disgraceful
scene in disgust? Can you imagine the losses in advertising revenue?

> As for other major expenses, I use Telus, Royal Bank, Chevron, and a
> local grocery chain that supports local athletes. But no dopers.
>
> Now, do you still think the congressional committee is irrelevant and
> not indicative of Americans' views of doping? (Note I said Americans',
> not fans.) How about the Tammy decision? Would they really prosecute
> her for lying if her doping was 'just business'? Would they have even
> had the BALCO inquiry?

Every day in this country, people are busted for cooking dope in
their basement. For the most part they are anonymous. If one of their
customers lies to the authorities in a way that causes problems it
ain't like people are just going to wink at it and have it rest at
that. But because the people involved are anonymous trash, people
like you don't notice.

What was different about Patrick Arnold was that he was cooking
PEDs for famous people rather than crank for meth whores. Because
he had famous customers he wasn't anonymous. But people just like
him go down all the time, and if you lie under oath about a meth
lab you are still in the ****, just like Tammy was.

As for congress, those are people that are playing to the cameras.
You will never see legislation that impacts anything on the field at
a baseball game. Because that would piss off the fans, and the vote
calculus says it won't happen.

BTW, the number of doping positives in baseball is way down. I guess
the game is much cleaner these days, eh?

>> You are not taking a reality based approach.
>
> Please. Spare us the "it's only about money and everyone else is
> dreaming line." Sure money's a factor, but it's not the only one. T-
> Mobile said this on quitting: "We have decided to take this step to
> distance ourselves and the brand T-Mobile from the latest doping
> confessions in sport and more particularly cycling," said Hamid
> Akhavan, Chief Executive of Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile unit.(http://
> www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2974820,00.html) In fact, they
> spent more to get out of their contract early.

You are not taking a reality based approach. T-Mobile had no problem
at all with an association with dopers, so long as what people talked
about was the heroic images on TV.

Bob Schwartz