Road Bike Racing - Thoughts on ASO break from UCI

At this year's TDF, the ASO announced that due to the UCI's handling of Rasmussen's case, they were going to work directly with WADA and LNDD at next year's tour for handling drug testing. But this doesn't solve anything like Rasmussen's case. Is ASO going to pay to follow every team's riders all year round? Pay for the testers to fly to the riders' locations and take the urine/blood to the labs? And remember, it won't just be 200 riders but every rider on every team because you won't know which riders will be in the TDF early in the year. And is ASO going to pay to keep a database of where everyone is and what tests they miss?

The whole thing is a red herring. They wanted to break from the UCI and this is their excuse to do it, but it's impossible. The ASO can't do all that. What about riders who have no intention of being in the TDF? The ASO has no right to test them and track their wherabouts. And if they're only going to work directly with WADA during the tour for tests then this didn't solve the Rasmussen stuff anyways since that wasn't the issue with him.

And the "ethical passport" is of course an obvious farce. It's amazing. Do these people (like Prudhomme) actually believe this stuff will work or are they purposely spouting crap?

I am sick and tired of both ASO and UCI with their *****ing and moaning. They seem to reek of leaks and incompetencies at their core. Even if ASO does break from the UCI I share your skepticism as to how they would test the riders. Honestly, both of them suck balls..

Looks like another nearly meaningless PR move in the ASO vs. UCI conflict. I can understand ASO bypassing the UCI testing during because the UCI has continually failed that mission, however, as you pointed out, the UCI will still have a role during the rest of the year in administering the various tests.

However, worrying about next year's TdF in the midst of so many other problems is a little premature. What ever happens next July is low on the list of things to focus on in Pro Cycling. Besides the long overdue conclusions to last year's doping cases (Landsi, OP) there are now 3 ProTour teams that will not be around next year (Phonak, Disco, Unibet). They originally planned that competition for 21 teams and will now have 18 most likely. Two questions arise in response. One, will either Disco or Unibet be replaced for next years competition? Second, how many teams must the ProTour have in order to continue? The follow up question must be: what happens to European Pro Cycling if the ProTour fails?

Looks like another nearly meaningless PR move in the ASO vs. UCI conflict. I can understand ASO bypassing the UCI testing during because the UCI has continually failed that mission, however, as you pointed out, the UCI will still have a role during the rest of the year in administering the various tests.

However, worrying about next year's TdF in the midst of so many other problems is a little premature. What ever happens next July is low on the list of things to focus on in Pro Cycling. Besides the long overdue conclusions to last year's doping cases (Landsi, OP) there are now 3 ProTour teams that will not be around next year (Phonak, Disco, Unibet). They originally planned that competition for 21 teams and will now have 18 most likely. Two questions arise in response. One, will either Disco or Unibet be replaced for next years competition? Second, how many teams must the ProTour have in order to continue? The follow up question must be: what happens to European Pro Cycling if the ProTour fails?

That's definitely wrong. Remember a number of sponsors pay the UCI to have a license for the year with the understanding that the license buys them placement in Pro Tour races. If the TDF is not one of those, for many of the sponsors, the license is worthless or near it. Look at Unibet. They didn't quit because of drugs/doping, but because their license was worthless (couldn't get into the grand tours).