Jim Flom
Can there be a lower threshold for disqualification than
"riders implicated in a legal procedure or police
investigation would not be welcome at this year's race?" How
general is that? Mere investigation as a disqualifier? Maybe
the French police will launch one on Lance in response to
the book just to turn the knife.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jun04-
/jun27news
Tour decision provokes reactions Following an announcement
from the Société du Tour de France that riders implicated in
a legal procedure or police investigation would not be
welcome at this year's race, reactions have come from some
of those directly affected. Notably Danilo Di Luca (Saeco),
who has himself been placed under investigation along with a
number of other cyclists in Italy. Di Luca, with the support
of his team manager Claudio Corti, has spoken out against
Jean-Marie Leblanc's decision to prevent riders in his
position from riding the Tour.
"What matters is that I have the support of my team,
but something incredible is happening: I may not be
able to ride the Tour because Leblanc doesn't want
people under investigation," Di Luca commented in La
Gazzetta dello Sport.
"My house has been searched and nothing was found," he
added. "I've never tested positive, and the phone taps that
involve me have not revealed anything... I'm under
investigation because they have nothing else to do. But at
the same time I wonder if those who were targeted in the
Sanremo 'blitz' three years ago at the Giro will be kept out
of the Tour. That's an investigation we've heard nothing
more about.
"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the
revelations in the book in France, in which it's said that
he has used banned substances and which the French courts
allowed to be published."
On the side of Cofidis, whose riders David Millar and Cédric
Vasseur have both been prohibited from taking the start due
to their implication in judge Richard Pallain's ongoing
investigation, Vasseur has (through his lawyer) expressed
his own disappointment at the Tour mentality.
"The decision made by [Amaury Sport Organisation] is
completely illegal," Vasseur's lawyer, Bertrand Wambecke,
commented in Saturday's edition of l'Equipe. "The
presumption of innocence, based on the most sacred texts of
democracy, is put in place to prevent this sort of public
stoning. If they do this, it would mean we're in complete
anarchy, and I intend to study the possible recourse."
Vasseur remains under official investigation in Pallain's
case although he has had his team's suspension lifted. His
trouble continued Saturday with an announcement from the
French cycling federation (FFC) that he would be prohibited
from starting in the national championship road race on
Sunday. According to l'Equipe, Cofidis has agreed with the
FFC's decision, which came as a result of the Tour's adopted
stance issued Friday.
"riders implicated in a legal procedure or police
investigation would not be welcome at this year's race?" How
general is that? Mere investigation as a disqualifier? Maybe
the French police will launch one on Lance in response to
the book just to turn the knife.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jun04-
/jun27news
Tour decision provokes reactions Following an announcement
from the Société du Tour de France that riders implicated in
a legal procedure or police investigation would not be
welcome at this year's race, reactions have come from some
of those directly affected. Notably Danilo Di Luca (Saeco),
who has himself been placed under investigation along with a
number of other cyclists in Italy. Di Luca, with the support
of his team manager Claudio Corti, has spoken out against
Jean-Marie Leblanc's decision to prevent riders in his
position from riding the Tour.
"What matters is that I have the support of my team,
but something incredible is happening: I may not be
able to ride the Tour because Leblanc doesn't want
people under investigation," Di Luca commented in La
Gazzetta dello Sport.
"My house has been searched and nothing was found," he
added. "I've never tested positive, and the phone taps that
involve me have not revealed anything... I'm under
investigation because they have nothing else to do. But at
the same time I wonder if those who were targeted in the
Sanremo 'blitz' three years ago at the Giro will be kept out
of the Tour. That's an investigation we've heard nothing
more about.
"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the
revelations in the book in France, in which it's said that
he has used banned substances and which the French courts
allowed to be published."
On the side of Cofidis, whose riders David Millar and Cédric
Vasseur have both been prohibited from taking the start due
to their implication in judge Richard Pallain's ongoing
investigation, Vasseur has (through his lawyer) expressed
his own disappointment at the Tour mentality.
"The decision made by [Amaury Sport Organisation] is
completely illegal," Vasseur's lawyer, Bertrand Wambecke,
commented in Saturday's edition of l'Equipe. "The
presumption of innocence, based on the most sacred texts of
democracy, is put in place to prevent this sort of public
stoning. If they do this, it would mean we're in complete
anarchy, and I intend to study the possible recourse."
Vasseur remains under official investigation in Pallain's
case although he has had his team's suspension lifted. His
trouble continued Saturday with an announcement from the
French cycling federation (FFC) that he would be prohibited
from starting in the national championship road race on
Sunday. According to l'Equipe, Cofidis has agreed with the
FFC's decision, which came as a result of the Tour's adopted
stance issued Friday.
