No Tour for Astana

classic1

Actually, I reckon cyclingfanssanon is barking up the wrong tree. Astana should have had their Protour licence revoked last year IMO. How many doping scandals was it with that team last year? I lost count. And Contador still has Puerto hanging over his head.

Crankyfeet

Thanks Drongo and CFA.

Well ... same as my opinion on the Giro exclusion, I am in agreement with CFA here. Where does this end? The Loser = cycling. Petty, arbitrary, puerile dogfight.

The focus should be on making doping more difficult to achieve... not settling petty scores and burning sponsors with decisions that have no basis in a process IMHO.

__________________

earth_dweller

which sponsors are they really burning here? The kazakh group - let's be realistic is not a long term sponsor for the sport. With this move ASO is actually protecting the sponsors that have been around for years, and more importantly the media sponsors, the ones with the big bucks.

Crankyfeet

So now every team sponsor has no clue as to how they might be punished in the future if one of their riders fails a test.

Perhaps the media sponsors would be happier if last year's winner was there together with last year's third place getter?

Again, why are Cofidis allowed to attend? They had a guy test positive. Rabobank? SD?

Isn't this just about a group of us enjoying the Hog getting hurt?

__________________

italiano

Thank Drongo. To emotinal writing=rant.

Only good argument I see:
"Also, is it really a good idea for Damsgaard's anti-doping plan to be panned with such impunity? If Damsgaard's plan is not good enough for Astana, then why is it good enough for CSC?"

Baddest argument I see:
"punishing riders such as Chris Horner for the crimes of riders like Vino"
Americentric.

__________________
For inches and centimetres, let fools contend."
-- Damian Grammaticus

poulidor

Have you too much drunk ?

Sponsors know now if their team failed repetitive doping test the team will be stay at home. Not on first failure.

Sponsors know that ASO and TDF are trying to restore respectability and dignity to TDF which are necessary to secure TV broadcasting and media. With less medias and less exposure of TDF team sponsoring has less values.
So Astana exclusion is good for team sponsors!

Crankyfeet

Well I didn't read the statement from Prudhomme, if that means I have missed something important re. policy. So apologies if that is the case. I'm still struggling to see the process though. Multiple failed tests. At the TdF? In one year? Over 5 years? How long are you not invited for?

If you as a Frenchman think its good for the TdF, that's good enough for me. My concern is lack of process and hidden agendas. And doing the right thing for cycling. And... if this is the right thing... I'm all for it. Not convinced yet though.

__________________

TheDarkLord

Yes, please read it. The excuse used by ASO is that Astana claimed the same "new team; we have cleaned up" mantra for the last TdF, and given how that went, they are going to just ban Astana this time. Don't see anything wrong in that, for it is a question of credibility. Once your credibility is shot, you can't simply rebuild it just like that.

That aside, I do think that there are hidden agendas and power struggles between UCI and ASO; the situation with Astana is just being exploited by ASO to full potential, and again, I agree with it. So Cranky, what would you do? Let the UCI continue their agenda of taking over the sport after the mess that they have created?

poulidor

There is ever hidden agendas especially from public when it's dopong problem in cycling. Why teams and riders met them together but with no media in 2005, 2006?
Since we have learnt that they have agreed "to stop doping" especially blood doping, it was not more possible to hide the fact that doping was widespread.
Had Astana and Disco stopped their doping actions? NO. Clearly visible from inside pro-cycling world, but they cannot say that outside.

Why to exclude just the new Astana? Because they were dirty, Biver (ex DS who was under Vino control last year) wanted to change clearly the politic of the team after 2007 TDF but he was fired to hire Bruyneel who has one of the dirtiest reputation as DS.
Because they cannot but everyone in jail when too many people are guilty, but some are clearly more guilty...
Because they want not destroy all teams, and job of a lot of people,
Because they cannot say that a lot of riders doped on last TDF..

and because they need to make a choice.

It was a clear signal to everyone with controlled damages for many people.

Crankyfeet

I would let UCI administer the sport... but first I would completely dismantle the UCI and rebuild it with representation from all stakeholders. Get the national bodies, the ASO's, the RCS', the sponsors, a riders' union, drug testing labs, as well as independent elected and appointed officials to all have board representaion on the UCI. Have the UCI funded better and be a stakeholder in the success of the tour, but not the major stakeholder of each event. Increase the revenue and spend more on dope prevention.

These are just some thoughts quickly off the top of my head.

__________________

Crankyfeet

Thanks pouli... good and informative post for me. I realize others may not need the lesson but it helped me.

__________________

TheDarkLord

You didn't address my question though. My question pertains to UCI as it is now. The odds of UCI getting rebuilt the way you want it to are about the same as the odds of the Moon escaping Earth's gravity. Right now, we have a UCI that is becoming increasingly dictatorial and trying to get control over the GTs (note how they are trying to control who can be chosen even as wildcard teams). Given that this is the UCI that you are dealing with at the moment, what would you do?

Also, to add to poulidor's comments, it is somewhat clear that the Kazhakhs are least committed among the current ProTeams to cleaning up the sport. In addition to signing up JB, another indicator of this is how they gave a one year suspension to Vino for his blood doping. IMO, they are more interested in securing victories per se, without caring how it is achieved.

helmutRoole2

+1... The UCI needs re-organization.

__________________
"Bait in 08" --nns1400

whiteboytrash

Madrid - Tour de France champion Alberto Contador will switch his attention to the Olympics and the Tour of Spain, where he he will be eligible to compete. Victor Cordera, director of the Spanish race known as the Vuelta, told Thursday's edition of the Marca sports daily that Contador's Astana team was welcome to compete in the September race after being not invited last year.

The statement came the day after Tour de France organizers announced that Astana will not be invited to the 2008 edition (and all other races run by the same company). A few days earlier Astana were also told that they weren't allowed to race at the Giro d'Italia.

While Tour organizers said that Astana's involvement in doping in 2006 and 2007 made them unwelcome, Cordera said he believed that the team has changed under the new leadership of Johan Bruyneel.

"The team is welcome," said Cordera, adding that Contador had nothing to do with Astana's past and "deserves to be in all the races."

Tour boss Christian Prudhomme said that Contador could be at the Tour if he switched teams, but the Spaniard who is currently competing in a race in Majorca doesn't appear interested in such a move.

"Although I would like to race the Tour, I have a plan B if I cannot race the Tour. I can prepare well for the Olympic Games. (And) the Vuelta is my home tour," he told Marca.

Contador and American Levi Leipheimer, who was third at the 2007 Tour, came to Astana from Discovery Channel after the American team disbanded at the end of the 2007 season. The former Discovery team boss Johan Bruyneel joined shortly afterwards.