German races under pressure

CH : Yeah, I had heard through the grapevine that several German races were under pressure.

I've also been told that a couple of high profile French races are also experiencing problems retaining/gaining sponsorship.

Well done the UCI.

limerickman said:

CH : Yeah, I had heard through the grapevine that several German races were under pressure.

I've also been told that a couple of high profile French races are also experiencing problems retaining/gaining sponsorship.

Well done the UCI.

Switzerland: after Zürich, the GP Chiasso won't take place in 2008 as well.

limerickman said:

CH : Yeah, I had heard through the grapevine that several German races were under pressure.

I've also been told that a couple of high profile French races are also experiencing problems retaining/gaining sponsorship.

Well done the UCI.

Isn't it a systemic problem? Are you saying that cycling's problems in Europe are solely due to the UCI?

I thought everyone from UCI to ASO, to cyclists, to sponsors, to doctors, to DS's, to WADA, to the labs, and to national involvement in investigations, were partly responsible for the current mess.

Unless you're saying that UCI should have handled doping like they did in the good old days when it was all covered up?

Can someone explain to me how if UCI, alone, did something different, cycling wouldn't be in its current mess?

The UCI is the governing body, they could have stopped it any time.

Crankyfeet said:

Isn't it a systemic problem? Are you saying that cycling's problems in Europe are solely due to the UCI?

I thought everyone from UCI to ASO, to cyclists, to sponsors, to doctors, to DS's, to WADA, to the labs, and to national involvement in investigations, were partly responsible for the current mess.

Unless you're saying that UCI should have handled doping like they did in the good old days when it was all covered up?

Can someone explain to me how if UCI, alone, did something different, cycling wouldn't be in its current mess?

cyclingheroes said:

The UCI is the governing body, they could have stopped it any time.

As far as I can see, not without a protracted mess, the likes of which we are currently seeing.

I assume you're talking about stopping doping right...not stopping the anti-doping fight?

How could UCI have stopped doping at "any time" without catching people out publicly for trying to cheat?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here CH so much as trying to learn...because I am missing something.

The UCI knew very well what was going on, for years! There is a sequence in the movie the Flying Scotsman which says it all. They couldn't stop Graeme O'Bree as he was clean...

Not that they didn't found something else, they disqualified his bike.

Crankyfeet said:

As far as I can see, not without a protracted mess, the likes of which we are currently seeing.

I assume you're talking about stopping doping right...not stopping the anti-doping fight?

How could UCI have stopped doping at "any time" without catching people out publicly for trying to cheat?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here CH so much as trying to learn...because I am missing something.

cyclingheroes said:

The UCI knew very well what was going on, for years! There is a sequence in the movie the Flying Scotsman which says it all. They couldn't stop Graeme O'Bree as he was clean...

Not that they didn't found something else, they disqualified his bike.

Yeah...but everyone in the game was with the UCI's position of keeping the omerta. It wasn't until Festina and OP that the [censored] hit the fan and it was no longer possible to keep it under wraps.

My point is everybody really was in on the game of allowing doping. The cyclists, the sponsors, the organizers. It was in the culture. UCI would have had the same problems stopping it back then as they are having now IMO.

No, they were using the system to ...no I am not going to say that.... But let's say the UCI has something familiar with these guys from Corleone.

That doesn't mean that the other players weren't part of the problem and do not play an active role. But the UCI played a key role, its their job to govern the sport, setting rules is part of that job. Now thats a hard job if you are activley undermining the very same rules.

Crankyfeet said:

Yeah...but everyone in the game was with the UCI's position of keeping the omerta. It wasn't until Festina and OP that the [censored] hit the fan and it was no longer possible to keep it under wraps.

My point is everybody really was in on the game of allowing doping. The cyclists, the sponsors, the organizers. It was in the culture. UCI would have had the same problems stopping it back then as they are having now IMO.

cyclingheroes said:

No, they were using the system to ...no I am not going to say that.... But let's say the UCI has something familiar with these guys from Corleone.

That doesn't mean that the other players weren't part of the problem and do not play an active role. But the UCI played a key role, its their job to govern the sport, setting rules is part of that job. Now thats a hard job if you are activley undermining the very same rules.

I don't think setting the rules was the problem. It's enforcing them that costs money. The UCI was a bureaucracy. It didn't get any extra wealth from spending money on drug testing. The problem is that the money was in the limelight of winners and the event. So that's where the money and drugs went. The IOC can't even get anti-doping right and they have huge funds as owners of the Olympics. The UCI owned very little up until recently.

So obviously you know stuff about corruption with which you can't talk about. But it doesn't surprise me that there was corruption. Because that was the only way UCI could wield its power and get a cut of the winnings. The UCI became the extortionist because they had the power to catch cyclists and ruin an event, but very little other major revenue source from pro cycling. The UCI became what it did because the whole set-up was farked. And still is IMO.

They played an active a role, a very active role.

Crankyfeet said:

I don't think setting the rules was the problem. It's enforcing them that costs money. The UCI was a bureaucracy. It didn't get any extra wealth from spending money on drug testing. The problem is that the money was in the limelight of winners and the event. So that's where the money and drugs went. The IOC can't even get anti-doping right and they have huge funds as owners of the Olympics. The UCI owned very little up until recently.

So obviously you know stuff about corruption with which you can't talk about. But it doesn't surprise me that there was corruption. Because that was the only way UCI could wield its power and get a cut of the winnings. The UCI became the extortionist because they had the power to catch cyclists and ruin an event, but very little other major revenue source from pro cycling. The UCI became what it did because the whole set-up was farked. And still is IMO.

cyclingheroes said:

No, they were using the system to ...no I am not going to say that.... But let's say the UCI has something familiar with these guys from Corleone.

Extorting money from teams in exchange for protecting the team...

During EPO era, even without EPO tests, UCI could have warned teams, riders and media about the problem. It was their responsability. They have done nothing but just have favored omerta by threatening against riders who spoke out!
Without acts they gave a clear signal that everyone was allowed to dope, especially when doctors said there is doping only if you are caught, especially when you mask testing results
especially when you protect teams fo satisfy activity growth.

cyclingheroes said:

They played an active a role, a very active role.

So what I'm hearing is that the UCI didn't just do nothing to combat the growing drug/doping problem, they were actually involved (physically and financially) in the drugs. Did they make money as dealers, or just as extortionists, or both? Was the UCI the beneficiary of corrupt money, or was it just the powerbrokers within the UCI who individually benefitted?

CH, what control does UCI have over covering up positive tests in grand tours like TdF? I mean if they did have some control over even these races, then they could have kept the omerta and avoided the current situation (the fact that it is an unacceptable situation is a different story), right?. Surely, they would have known that if they start busting many riders (even if it is because of lack of payment of the "ransom" by the team), there would be a problem with sponsors leaving the sport?

[censored], Vaughn Trevi and Chris H would have a field day in here moderating and deleting all the speculative suspicions we've been posturing about.🙄

TDL - I was thinking the same thing. Whilst I could see how they might want to tarnish the TdF to spite ASO, it doesn't make sense that the UCI would have had a hand in entirely creating the current debacle, if all the positive tests were vetted before being allowed to stand. Unless they're prepared to cut off their own nose to spite their face? And be really stupid about it?

Some questions :
Where is the UCI money received by UCI from Armstrong? Why UCI could have accepted that? Is there no ethical problem?
Why there is leak on doping case?
Everyone was closing their eyes before Festina, why UCI didn't open it after? Why UCI comdemning Manzano? Maybe Manzano should have sued UCI on French soil for none assistance, judge of Cofidis concluded that management could not ignore what was doing their riders even if they were not accomplice.

TheDarkLord said:

CH, what control does UCI have over covering up positive tests in grand tours like TdF? I mean if they did have some control over even these races, then they could have kept the omerta and avoided the current situation (the fact that it is an unacceptable situation is a different story), right?. Surely, they would have known that if they start busting many riders (even if it is because of lack of payment of the "ransom" by the team), there would be a problem with sponsors leaving the sport?

The UCI is responsible for the testing during the Grand Tours. The conflict with CONI during this years Giro was that CONI tested Simoni, Di Luca, Mazzoleni and Ricco. The UCI stated that CONI was not allowed to do so because only the UCI is allowed to do the testing during the Grand Tours.

This year it could be different as ASO already announced that they want the French National Doping Agency to do the testing in the future. Starting in 2008.

cyclingheroes said:

The UCI is responsible for the testing during the Grand Tours. The conflict with CONI during this years Giro was that CONI tested Simoni, Di Luca, Mazzoleni and Ricco. The UCI stated that CONI was not allowed to do so because only the UCI is allowed to do the testing during the Grand Tours.

This year it could be different as ASO already announced that they want the French National Doping Agency to do the testing in the future. Starting in 2008.

Okay, so UCI decides who to test, where to test, etc. What happens when a positive result shows up? Is the lab bound by contract to reveal the result only to UCI (who may then choose to allow the lab to make it public)? If the lab was truly independent as italiano was suggesting in the other thread, then the UCI would not quite have the control to institute cover-ups.

Lab under UCI/WADA make blind testing so only UCI can normaly reveal the identity of a positive test!