UCI grant Saiz ProTour licence....

whiteboytrash said:

Not bad work by a bloke who was nabbed with a briefcase full of EPO, blood and cash !
____________
The International Cycling Union (UCI) has granted Spaniard Manolo Saiz a ProTour licence for the 2007 season.

Saiz was implicated in the Operacion Puerto blood doping scandal in his former role as manager of the Liberty Seguros team, though the UCI insisted they were unable to deny him a licence, as his role in the affair could not be proven.

In a statement, the UCI criticised the "lack of information on the part of the Spanish authoritites" and "the highly confusing general context of Operacion Puerto."

The UCI also insisted it would "take every measure that it thinks necessary to protect the interests of cycling, especially concerning disciplinary procedures against any implicated individuals."

Saiz stepped down as manager of Liberty Seguros in the wake of the allegations, after which the team, led by Vuelta a Espana winner Alexander Vinokourov, changed sponsors to Astana, and are now managed by former race director of the Tour de Suisse, Marc Biver

If I didn't read this on another website, I would be convinced you made this up. The question I ask myself after reading this is......... "Why am I still a fan?"

Can the sport survive this? Do we want the sport to survive this? I wasn't as hard on McQuaid/UCI as the other posters, but now......

If a man cannot be implicated by catching him with a bag of blood coming from a lab, strapped with cash, and a black book connecting him to riders[whoever they are], then how can one be connected to doping?

Maybe [censored] Pound is right.

whiteboytrash said:

Not bad work by a bloke who was nabbed with a briefcase full of EPO, blood and cash !
____________
The International Cycling Union (UCI) has granted Spaniard Manolo Saiz a ProTour licence for the 2007 season.

Saiz was implicated in the Operacion Puerto blood doping scandal in his former role as manager of the Liberty Seguros team, though the UCI insisted they were unable to deny him a licence, as his role in the affair could not be proven.

In a statement, the UCI criticised the "lack of information on the part of the Spanish authoritites" and "the highly confusing general context of Operacion Puerto."

The UCI also insisted it would "take every measure that it thinks necessary to protect the interests of cycling, especially concerning disciplinary procedures against any implicated individuals."

Saiz stepped down as manager of Liberty Seguros in the wake of the allegations, after which the team, led by Vuelta a Espana winner Alexander Vinokourov, changed sponsors to Astana, and are now managed by former race director of the Tour de Suisse, Marc Biver

Riders are precluded from participating in the Tour de France and even suspended and fired by their teams on the basis of suspicion, while the UCI grants Saiz a license, totally ignoring the fact that he had 60,000 Euros and banned substances in his possession. I just don't understand that.

[font=Verdana]You're right on many fronts... the UCI has sort of shot itself in the foot in not implementing rules long ago to combat such an issue... McQuaid has the issue now that he doesn't have the rules or the right to reign in the dopers and dealers because the UCI don't have rules to enforce for doping of this nature... Saiz is within in his right (legally speaking) to hold onto his ProTour licence because nothing has been proven nor have charges been laid by the Spanish authorities. McQuaid is right in the sense that everything that comes out of [/font][font=Verdana]Spain[/font][font=Verdana] has been conflicting. Initially we were going to have the names of 200 athletes and this was the dope affair to end all dope affairs. What do we have now ? Nothing.

McQuaid/UCI are finally taking the heat for Verbruggen sticking his head in the sand for so many years and taking care of certain riders (Brochard, Armstrong, Zulle, Virenque etc.) that its virtually impossible to come down on teams and riders now that doping has become publicly unfashionable. It was always accepted and now it’s not popular the UCI doesn't have the logistics or laws in place to crack down on such an affair. Imagine that riders can be suspended from races under the ethics code but they made no such provision for team owners ! What were they thinking ? Wasn't Armstrong's donation of a blood machine supposed to catch these cheats ? (food for thought)

Where to from here ? I really don’t know. McQuaid is drowning in his own foolhardiness… I reckon he wants to drop around to Verbruggen house and say “what farking mess have you left me with ?”
[/font]
[font=Verdana][font=Verdana]To be honest I'm laughing at the whole thing and I've lost a lot of interest in the sport... it become ridiculous now... Landis says he wants to bring the UCI down and to be honest I don’t know who to believe now….[/font]
[/font]

wolfix said:

If I didn't read this on another website, I would be convinced you made this up. The question I ask myself after reading this is......... "Why am I still a fan?"

Can the sport survive this? Do we want the sport to survive this? I wasn't as hard on McQuaid/UCI as the other posters, but anymore......

If a man cannot be implicated by catching him with a bag of blood coming from a lab, strapped with cash, and a black book connecting him to riders[whoever they are], then how can one be connected to doping?

Maybe [censored] Pound is right.

wolfix said:

If I didn't read this on another website, I would be convinced you made this up. The question I ask myself after reading this is......... "Why am I still a fan?"

Can the sport survive this? Do we want the sport to survive this? I wasn't as hard on McQuaid/UCI as the other posters, but now......

If a man cannot be implicated by catching him with a bag of blood coming from a lab, strapped with cash, and a black book connecting him to riders[whoever they are], then how can one be connected to doping?

Maybe [censored] Pound is right.

I have to agree with the sentiments you express here Wolf.

To follow this sport takes a lot of heart : and given what we've been subjected to, the point is fast approaching where one has to ask, what is the point of following this sport any longer?
Unbelievable.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]Wasn't Armstrong's donation of a blood machine supposed to catch these cheats ? (food for thought)[/font]

[font=Verdana]Speaking of which here is some interesting testimony from the man himself... funny how's his memory goes at key times but he was so meticulous with his preparation in training...
______[/font]

Taken from Lance Armstrong's deposition Nov. 30, 2005. "Q" denotes questions are being asked by Jeff Tillotson legal counsel for SCA; "A" denotes answers are being given by Lance Armstrong. Completely legal; no confidentiality agreement is in effect.

2 Q. Now, we were talking about WADA and UCI.
3. You have made a -- a contribution or donation to the
4. UCI, have you not?
5 A. I have, yeah.
6 Q Do you recall when that was made?
7 A Some years ago. I don't recall exactly.
8 Q Well, 2000, for example?
9 A I don't know.
10 Q. Was it -- was there anything that occasioned
11 that, that you recall? Like I'm doing it because of x
12 or y or z?
13 A I'm doing it to -- to fund the fight against
14 doping.
15 Q And what -- what made you -- triggered
16 that? I mean, was there any particular event?
17. A. The only event, or the only idea is that I'm
18 in support of that fight, just like I've done on other
19 occasions.
20. Q. Why UCI? I mean, why give the money to UCI?
21 A. Because they're our governing body.
22 Q Okay. How much did you give?
23 A I think 25,000.
24 Q You say you think. Do you --
25 A Yeah, I say I think because I'm not 100
page 97
1 percent sure.
(skipping to line 13 since -1-13 is over how much was paid.)
13 Q was it by personal check?
14 A I don't remember.
15 Q Did you tell the UCI you were going to make it
16 before you did?
17 A I don't recall, but I don't think so. I
18 don't know.
19 Q You gave $25,000, or approximately $25,000
20 to the UCI, but you don't remember if you told them
21 beforehand that you were sending them a check?
22 A I don't recall.
forward to page 99
18 Q Okay. But did you let anyone know this is
19 coming?
20 A I told you, I don't remember.
21 Q Okay. Have you spoken to anyone at UCI
22 regarding your donation?
23 A Yeah.
24 Q Who?
25 A I have spoken to Alain Rumpf, Hein
page 100
1 Verbruggen, perhaps others.
2 Q Do you knwo what they've done with the
3 money?
4 A I just told you, I don't know.
5 Q Okay. Like they didn't buy some specific
6 equipment or something with it that you're aware of?
7 It wasn't earmarked --
8 A Which part of I don't know do you not
9 understand?
10 Q Do you have no idea why you gave $25,000 to
11 UCI at all. And you don't even know if you called
12 anyone before --
13 A. I don't know.

wolfix said:

If I didn't read this on another website, I would be convinced you made this up.

I knew it! It's WBT!

Hey ! Lance bunged Tyler ! andI thought he didn't remember ???????
_________

sysmex.co.jp050729.htmlOpen ↗

Sysmex Corporation (HQ: Kobe, Japan; President: Hisashi Ietsugu) announced Automated Hematology Analyzer XE-2100 (hereinafter referred to as XE-2100) that Sysmex be associated with the manufacture, sale, distribution or marketing, was used in doping tests during the Tour de France 2005 cycling road race, one of the three largest sporting events in the world. This distinction follows closely on the heels of this product's adoption for the 2004 Athens Olympics. The introduction of the XE-2100 to the Tour de France was made possible by a financial donation to the International Cycling Union (UCI) from Lance Armstrong, a great American cyclist, who has been concerned about the increasing number of doping offenders in his sport. Incidentally, Mr. Armstrong won an unprecedented seventh consecutive victory in this year's race.[img]sysmex.co.jpspacer.gifOpen ↗[/img] The Tour de France is the world's largest cycling road race, and is held in and around France every year in July. Its popularity transcends the cycling world; the Tour de France is often cited as one of the three greatest sporting events, on par with Olympics and soccer's World Cup. This year, the race was held over a period of three weeks from July 2 through 24.
Recent years have seen an increasing number of cases of unauthorized doping by athletes, who use drugs in an attempt to enhance their athletic performance. Given this situation, doping testing has become an important measure in ensuring the fairness of competitions.
Lance Armstrong, a great American cyclist, is keenly aware of this problem. He voiced a desire that strict doping testing be conducted as part of the Tour de France 2005. Mr. Armstrong recommended that the XE-2100 be used in these tests, and personally financed UCI's purchase of the required XE-2100.
The XE-2100 is a hematology analyzer that can measure more than 32 different blood parameters, through an exact count of white and red blood cells and other cells. The application of this function for measuring hemoglobin content in reticulocytes makes doping testing simple and reliable. For this reason, this analyzer was also used during the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens.
It is a great honor for Sysmex Corporation's product to be adopted for important doping tests, with the support of both such a great athlete and of the organizer of such a prestigious sporting event. Sysmex will continue to contribute to a wide range of medical fields through its proactive R&D activities.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]Speaking of which here is some interesting testimony from the man himself... funny how's his memory goes at key times but he was so meticulous with his preparation in training...
______[/font]

Taken from Lance Armstrong's deposition Nov. 30, 2005. "Q" denotes questions are being asked by Jeff Tillotson legal counsel for SCA; "A" denotes answers are being given by Lance Armstrong. Completely legal; no confidentiality agreement is in effect.

2 Q. Now, we were talking about WADA and UCI.
3. You have made a -- a contribution or donation to the
4. UCI, have you not?
5 A. I have, yeah.
.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]You're right on many fronts... the UCI has sort of shot itself in the foot in not implementing rules long ago to combat such an issue... McQuaid has the issue now that he doesn't have the rules or the right to reign in the dopers and dealers because the UCI don't have rules to enforce for doping of this nature... Saiz is within in his right (legally speaking) to hold onto his ProTour licence because nothing has been proven nor have charges been laid by the Spanish authorities. McQuaid is right in the sense that everything that comes out of [/font][font=Verdana]Spain[/font][font=Verdana] has been conflicting. Initially we were going to have the names of 200 athletes and this was the dope affair to end all dope affairs. What do we have now ? Nothing.

McQuaid/UCI are finally taking the heat for Verbruggen sticking his head in the sand for so many years and taking care of certain riders (Brochard, Armstrong, Zulle, Virenque etc.) that its virtually impossible to come down on teams and riders now that doping has become publicly unfashionable. It was always accepted and now it’s not popular the UCI doesn't have the logistics or laws in place to crack down on such an affair. Imagine that riders can be suspended from races under the ethics code but they made no such provision for team owners ! What were they thinking ? Wasn't Armstrong's donation of a blood machine supposed to catch these cheats ? (food for thought)

Where to from here ? I really don’t know. McQuaid is drowning in his own foolhardiness… I reckon he wants to drop around to Verbruggen house and say “what farking mess have you left me with ?”
[/font]
[font=Verdana][font=Verdana]To be honest I'm laughing at the whole thing and I've lost a lot of interest in the sport... it become ridiculous now... Landis says he wants to bring the UCI down and to be honest I don’t know who to believe now….[/font]
[/font]

This is correct, the UCI and even WADA are not designed to take on criminal situations. Its unfortunate, but a fact. Keep in mind though that the driving force behind what happened at the tour last year started with the tour organization and then spread to the team management with no doubt some influence from sponsors. While we wait for the UCI and WADA to catch up with regulations to stop the likes of Saiz, I have no doubt that the tour organizers and team managers will be just as decisive next year if not more so. I see no way that Astana with Saiz at the helm would be allowed to ride in next year's tour. I have doubts as well if a team with Jan or Ivan on board would be allowed at the tour either.

I would like to ask McQuaid how does he explain the fact that on one hand he doesn't want Basso Ullrich and even Hamilton back and on the other they grant Saiz a Pro Tour licence? On one hand UCI doesn't want to riders that were implicated by rumour (and possibly by falsified documents) in a drug scandal and on the other UCI allows someone who was caught with a bag full of doping goodies to run a team?
Ridiculous is hardly adequate to call it...

limerickman said:

I have to agree with the sentiments you express here Wolf.

To follow this sport takes a lot of heart : and given what we've been subjected to, the point is fast approaching where one has to ask, what is the point of following this sport any longer?
Unbelievable.

Enhancements drugs are rampant in all sports even down to the high school level in the States.
The UCI's handling of Puerto proves that two wrongs do not make a right but mishandling only adds to the confusion and ill will.
Hopefully good things will emerge out of this cluster f**k as they do sometimes out of such things.
The good and bad,I guess, is that people(fans) forget very quiclky.

[font=Verdana]Although if the 2007 season was starting tomorrow as things as they are now you'd think how can I support this sport... ? Something has to happen before the start of next season....[/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]

jhuskey said:

Enhancements drugs are rampant in all sports even down to the high school level in the States.
The UCI's handling of Puerto proves that two wrongs do not make a right but mishandling only adds to the confusion and ill will.
Hopefully good things will emerge out of this cluster f**k as they do sometimes out of such things.
The good and bad,I guess, is that people(fans) forget very quiclky.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]Although if the 2007 season was starting tomorrow as things as they are now you'd think how can I support this sport... ? Something has to happen before the start of next season....[/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]

That's a long way away and remember how many were going to boycott the tour because of Puerto and then it got exciting.
I was watching every stage with great interest because it had drama. Then the Landis scandal happened and it was like finding out you got drunk and had sex with your sister,Btw I don't have a sister just an analogy, and still we wait to see what happens next.
Oh yeah, we will be there waiting to see who emerges from the dust and claims the prize.

DV1976 said:

I would like to ask McQuaid how does he explain the fact that on one hand he doesn't want Basso Ullrich and even Hamilton back and on the other they grant Saiz a Pro Tour licence? On one hand UCI doesn't want to riders that were implicated by rumour (and possibly by falsified documents) in a drug scandal and on the other UCI allows someone who was caught with a bag full of doping goodies to run a team?
Ridiculous is hardly adequate to call it...

Saiz knows to much...

jhuskey said:

That's a long way away and remember how many were going to boycott the tour because of Puerto and then it got exciting.
I was watching every stage with great interest because it had drama. Then the Landis scandal happened and it was like finding out you got drunk and had sex with your sister,Btw I don't have a sister just an analogy, and still we wait to see what happens next.
Oh yeah, we will be there waiting to see who emerges from the dust and claims the prize.

Nobody I know watched the TDF this year except for the highlights. There was a total lack of interest with JU,LA, or Basso not going at each other.....

wolfix said:

Nobody I know watched the TDF this year except for the highlights. There was a total lack of interest with JU,LA, or Basso not going at each other.....

Interesting,most I know were very cool toward it initially and then got excited toward the middle of the race.
I would agree that the race is in a new era without anyone of great excitment.
Even Basso doesn't seem to inspire great excitment.
The Lance vs Jan scenario will be hard to duplicate.

jhuskey said:

Interesting,most I know were very cool toward it initially and then got excited toward the middle of the race.
I would agree that the race is in a new era without anyone of great excitment.
Even Basso doesn't seem to inspire great excitment.
The Lance vs Jan scenario will be hard to duplicate.

I agree... the Landis v the needle "should I / shouldn't I" duel just wasn't as exciting.... :p

jhuskey said:

Interesting,most I know were very cool toward it initially and then got excited toward the middle of the race.
I would agree that the race is in a new era without anyone of great excitment.
Even Basso doesn't seem to inspire great excitment.
The Lance vs Jan scenario will be hard to duplicate.

I think a lot of it had to do with fans simply being tired of all the doping stories. And in general, most sport fans love a situation where we have a contest of two people.[or teams] This year we didn't have a clue as to who is the dominant rider. I have followed cycling all my life, but I think watching it on TV is worst then watching Nascar. Except those rare moments when an attack occurs or the finishing sprint. I imagine the Euro's have far better coverage and announcers though.

This year I watched more TDF than last years. With LA, there is no suspense, just if DC forgets the refilling for mountain stages. A lot of riders were human this year too, it was great to see them.
For American, TDF was less exciting because of less American riders were able to win and DC had difficulties.
Floyd's show were great and I like it, but it were certainly a fairytale.

DV1976 said:

I would like to ask McQuaid how does he explain the fact that on one hand he doesn't want Basso Ullrich and even Hamilton back and on the other they grant Saiz a Pro Tour licence? On one hand UCI doesn't want to riders that were implicated by rumour (and possibly by falsified documents) in a drug scandal and on the other UCI allows someone who was caught with a bag full of doping goodies to run a team?
Ridiculous is hardly adequate to call it...

I agree - but as CH says perhaps Manolo knows where the bodies are buried?

As you probably know, Saiz had a reputation at ONCE for producing a "spectacular" team.
ONCE literally flogged the entire peloton from 1993-1999 : their trophy haul was massive with Zulle, Jalabert literally flying.
Robert Millar recalled racing Jalabert when pedalling at 50kmph - with Millar gasping for air as LJ raced by him mouth closed under no apparent stress.