Phonak not in Pro Tour

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Phonak is not on the list of teams for the Pro Tour. This is because Camenzind, Hamilton and Perez. The UCI thinks there is a problem similar to Cofidis and wants the team to shape up. They have until Nov 22 to appeal and a decision will be made Dec 3. It sounded like the UCI didn't like Phonak questioning the legitimacy of the blood doping test.

Phonak is not on the list of teams for the Pro Tour. This is because Camenzind, Hamilton and Perez. The UCI thinks there is a problem similar to Cofidis and wants the team to shape up. They have until Nov 22 to appeal and a decision will be made Dec 3. It sounded like the UCI didn't like Phonak questioning the legitimacy of the blood doping test.

I would hope it relates to the systemic pattern associated with that team rather than the merely the team questioning of the rushed into use new scientifically unvetted test, but with UCI's history who knows what whim may supercede reason.

Since Hamilton’s hearing is pending till January, they ought defer the Phonak hearing till after a Hamilton hearing unless they feel the other two decisions are enough to bar the team a license independent of whether Hamilton is found guilty.

BTW: why was T-Mobile only granted a 2 year license instead of 4?

I see it did say that if approved Phonak would only be granted a 1 year license, so maybe they were planning on waiting on Tyler’s decision before granting a long term license.

I find everything considering the pro tour (UCI vs GT) and the Phonak rider's blood doping accusations very confusing. I know there are some very passionate people on both sides of the argument, but I would rather be confused and let the appeal process happen.

UCI wants to see a complete change in team management to give them 1 year licence.

I think it's a positive step. I'm sure if Hamilton and Perez are found to be innocent then the decision will be revisited.

In the meantime it shows the UCI holds teams to a level of accountability for their riders. If a team a has three riders fail dope tests in a season it can't realistically hide behind a 'we knew nothing about it' argument. Even if the team weren't involved in any formal doping programme themselves I think it is quite fair to argue that they are failing in their own responsibilities to ensure their own riders are performing in a clean and legal manner.

I think something like this is long overdue - I don't buy the line that teams have nothing to do with doping in cycling.

James

I think something like this is long overdue - I don't buy the line that teams have nothing to do with doping in cycling.

James

I agree. I think teams need to start testing there own riders beyond what the UCI does. I would think this would be to the teams advantage as they could find problems and deal with them. I have never heard of a rider being fired because the team tested a rider and found him positive for doping. It is only when they get caught by the UCI that they get fired. It is more that they are being fired for getting caught, not for doping.

I agree too! Of course teams know that most of their riders are doping! They just need to check them! I don`t think they`re not doing that because doping tests are not cheap, so...why?:confused: