roadwarrior

Not in the least.

Namenda

I can't argue with the points he makes about Astana, and he certainly has the right to doubt the character of a team with that kind of history.

What I can argue with, is that other teams with similar problems aren't receiving the same sanctions. The most compelling example is High Road, followed closely by Cofidis.

Where is the consistency?

harlond

"This year, it's a 'new' team for the second time, and they tell us the same as last year: 'We don't have anything to do with the past'. Which is true."

Man doesn't even agree with his own logic. PR, and little else. Plus anybody who thinks the kind of things that happened last year with Astana would happen this year with Johan at the helm hasn't been paying attention for the last decade. Astana may be the safest pick ASO could make for the TdF.

within

Quote from Prudhomme:

"the idea (behind this decision) is not 'Never again Astana', it is 'Never again 2007!"

What are the procedures to determine which teams get banned and when they will be allowed to re enter competition? Too bad they didn't announce their decision to selectively ban Astana prior to riders signing contracts for 08. Kind of reads like a punishment directed towards certain riders, rather than the whole team.

MDcatV

If I understand correctly, which might not be the case, the sponsor is same, but rest of the team is comprised of different parts.

That makes me wonder, what if instead of Astana as the title sponsor, it was the same DS/Mgmt/riders/equipment, etc. but team name was General Motors, or General Electic, or whatever insert big $$ sponser name here, would they then be banned? I'd think not, which is why I dont really agree with the logic behind the decision.

waterrockets 

They probably posted a picture of someone eating cake.

cslone

Ha!




*The above picture is not an accusation of guilt. It was the first picture that came up in my search that I could edit. Innocent until proven guilty, unless for a joke.

Hocam

The aristocrats!

waterrockets 

G'night everybody. You've been great. Really.

I'll be here all week.

wanders

... and don't forget to tip your waitress.







Ladies and gentlemen.....Waterrockets has left the building.

roadwarrior

Sinkewitz' positive actually came before the Tour, it took forever for the results to be known (remember the conspiracy "experts" that thought the UCI was trying to make ASO look bad by releasing the results after the Tour started...and those two organizations were in big political debate at that point) and they withdrew him. Cofidis with Moreni's positive resulted in them withdrawing the team on their own. They were not asked to leave.

Situation's a bit different with Astana.

Hey, I'd like to see them race. But, c'mon...most of you out here think Postal and Disco cheated for years and somehow got away with it. The guy that ran those teams is running Astana. Astana was really cheating big time before Bruyneel took over. Now it's terrible that they are not in the ASO races.

Can't have it both ways.

roadwarrior

To hear it on bikeforums, Bryuneel's been cheating the entire decade. So I can surmise your point is that they'd not get caught?

DiLuca Fan

Too much information...too logical.

DiLuca Fan

Yeah...the new Astana cheaters are much better than the old Astana cheaters. At least if you think that Postal/Disco cheated.

Of course, they didn't get caught. At least not in Postal/Disco colors.

FatguyRacer

I'd like to add the rebuttal from the guy over at Pez. He makes an even better argument than the BS surrender monkeys who run ASO.

https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fu...70&status=True

Namenda

I see what you mean, but that's not really what I was talking about. To quote Prudhomme--"We don't have the right to have a short memory". Because of this, ASO banned Astana due not only to their transgressions in the 2007 Tour, but for improprieties while competing as Liberty Seguros.

If this is the standard they want to judge the teams by, then High Road/T-Mobile/Telekom and Cofidis should be out. They have recent doping issues, including in the Tour, as well as major doping issues in the past.

Cherry-picking the teams they want out reeks of bias. Again I ask, where is the consistency? All ASO has to do, in order to not look like they're playing favorites, is to write up a set of simple guidelines. Something really easy, like "If you get a confirmed positive doping result in any of our races, the rider involved is not allowed to race ASO events again, and the team involved is out for one year." That was easy, eh?

roadwarrior

I'll summarize:

The riders need a strong union that will work with organizers on rules and regulations. No riders, no race.

roadwarrior

But, they are ASO. That's what makes this so comically funny. That's why I started the thread.

Bottom line, they will do what they want as long as Credit Lyonnais, Aquarel, Champion, Skoda, and the large number of associate sponors and the like continue to write checks. The money people will be the ones to initiate change, along with countries and companies that pay for the broadcast rights. The sponsors leaving the sport in droves finally got people at the team level to admit that, hey, there might be a problem here.

Until the riders have some control over their destinies, this will not change.

I'm 53 years old, I've been to several Tours, I started racing bikes at age 8, I went overseas to race, I've raced here for many years before giving it up...I cannot recall being less interested in the pro cycling season than I am this one coming up.