Moser advocates legalization



S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>,
Michael Press ('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We don't need pro cycling in the Olympics. They don't have motor
>> racing or what you Americans laughably call 'football' in the
>> Olympics, but those sports haven't died.

>
> Whereas British football is no joke.


At least they use their feet. Football? Feet? Oh, no, sorry, I realise
that's too hard for you to understand.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another hick in the mall
-- Drink C'lloid
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Donald
Munro ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> We don't need pro cycling in the Olympics. They don't have motor
>>> racing or what you Americans laughably call 'football' in the
>>> Olympics, but those sports haven't died.

>
> Michael Press wrote:
>> Whereas British football is no joke.

>
> But Scottish football is a joke.


Come on, Gretna!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>From procycling.com:
>>>
>>>"Francesco Moser, president of the International Association of Pro
>>>Riders (ACP) has told Italian TV that one solution to the doping issue
>>>would be to legalise the use of all products. "If all riders can be
>>>brought to the same level then we should stick with dope controls. If
>>>not, then for the professionals perhaps the solution is [total
>>>legalisation]," he told RAI. Asked about the dangers this move could
>>>lead to, Moser responded: "In our world, there are a lot of
>>>dangers." "
>>>
>>>Big surprise.

>>
>>Moser is your typical retired pro idiot. Legalization will never
>>happen and cannot happen because WADA controls drug testing, not the
>>UCI or Italian cycling federation.

>
>
> Legalisation /can/ happen. I'm not convinced it's a good idea, but it
> certainly can. The UCI is not compelled to uphold WADA, it chooses to.
> It could withdraw. That might mean the US and the poodle-dog British
> would pull out of the UCI, but no great loss there.
>
>
>>And if it happens for cycling then it would have to happen for every
>>Olympic sport. And that's simply not in the cards.

>
>
> We don't need pro cycling in the Olympics. They don't have motor racing
> or what you Americans laughably call 'football' in the Olympics, but
> those sports haven't died.
>



The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to even
put this out there as a viable solution means you are clueless.

So no, legalization cannot happen and never will happen.

Magilla
 
D

Deke_Rivers

Guest
bob sullivan wrote:
>
> Well, really, he does have a point. Up until Tom Simpson died, nobody
> gave a **** what the riders were taking.


Not true, there were several incidents; in 1953 or '54 involving
Mallejac who collapsed on the Ventoux in a similar way Simpson did, but
they did revive him. There was an article the next day in l' Equipe
where the tour doctor complained how the riders took anything they
could find without regard for safety, they were already talking about a
series of measures to curb doping.
Also in 1962, a bunch of riders(Junkermann and others) got mysteriously
sick and had to leave the Tour, blaming the fish they had at the
restaurant the night before. Again, Dr Dumas voiced his concerns in L'
Equipe, and even thought about quitting the Tour. Cartoonist Pellos did
a drawing of a fish skeleton where the fish bones had been replaced by
syringes.

> Considering how vehemently Anquetil fought drug testing, I wonder
> if he was doped to the gills during his various GT wins.


Yes he was; there's this anecdote, where Anquetil was doing the Trophee
Barracchi with an Italian rider(forgot if it was Adorni or someone
else), and they decided not to take anything. They won, but after the
race Anquetil said it was the hardest and he'd never do it again! he
also refused to go through testing after he beat the Hour Record in
1967, so his record was never accepted. Anquetil knew what he was
doing, he even said that he didn't care if he was going to die in his
50's, which is what happened.
PL


>
> ~bob
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
Deke_Rivers wrote:

> bob sullivan wrote:
>
>>Well, really, he does have a point. Up until Tom Simpson died, nobody
>>gave a **** what the riders were taking.

>
>
> Not true, there were several incidents; in 1953 or '54 involving
> Mallejac who collapsed on the Ventoux in a similar way Simpson did, but
> they did revive him. There was an article the next day in l' Equipe
> where the tour doctor complained how the riders took anything they
> could find without regard for safety, they were already talking about a
> series of measures to curb doping.
> Also in 1962, a bunch of riders(Junkermann and others) got mysteriously
> sick and had to leave the Tour, blaming the fish they had at the
> restaurant the night before. Again, Dr Dumas voiced his concerns in L'
> Equipe, and even thought about quitting the Tour. Cartoonist Pellos did
> a drawing of a fish skeleton where the fish bones had been replaced by
> syringes.
>
>
>>Considering how vehemently Anquetil fought drug testing, I wonder
>>if he was doped to the gills during his various GT wins.

>
>
> Yes he was; there's this anecdote, where Anquetil was doing the Trophee
> Barracchi with an Italian rider(forgot if it was Adorni or someone
> else), and they decided not to take anything. They won, but after the
> race Anquetil said it was the hardest and he'd never do it again! he
> also refused to go through testing after he beat the Hour Record in
> 1967, so his record was never accepted. Anquetil knew what he was
> doing, he even said that he didn't care if he was going to die in his
> 50's, which is what happened.
> PL
>
>
>
>>~bob



Benjo, is that you?

'Grilla
 
D

Deke_Rivers

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Deke_Rivers wrote:
>
> > bob sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>Well, really, he does have a point. Up until Tom Simpson died, nobody
> >>gave a **** what the riders were taking.

> >
> >
> > Not true, there were several incidents; in 1953 or '54 involving
> > Mallejac who collapsed on the Ventoux in a similar way Simpson did, but
> > they did revive him. There was an article the next day in l' Equipe
> > where the tour doctor complained how the riders took anything they
> > could find without regard for safety, they were already talking about a
> > series of measures to curb doping.
> > Also in 1962, a bunch of riders(Junkermann and others) got mysteriously
> > sick and had to leave the Tour, blaming the fish they had at the
> > restaurant the night before. Again, Dr Dumas voiced his concerns in L'
> > Equipe, and even thought about quitting the Tour. Cartoonist Pellos did
> > a drawing of a fish skeleton where the fish bones had been replaced by
> > syringes.
> >
> >
> >>Considering how vehemently Anquetil fought drug testing, I wonder
> >>if he was doped to the gills during his various GT wins.

> >
> >
> > Yes he was; there's this anecdote, where Anquetil was doing the Trophee
> > Barracchi with an Italian rider(forgot if it was Adorni or someone
> > else), and they decided not to take anything. They won, but after the
> > race Anquetil said it was the hardest and he'd never do it again! he
> > also refused to go through testing after he beat the Hour Record in
> > 1967, so his record was never accepted. Anquetil knew what he was
> > doing, he even said that he didn't care if he was going to die in his
> > 50's, which is what happened.
> > PL

>
> Benjo, is that you?
>
> 'Grilla


No...I'm pretty new around here.
Pierre
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
> involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to even
> put this out there as a viable solution means you are clueless.


Road ? MTB ? Huge involvement ?
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
>>> Whereas British football is no joke.


Donald Munro wrote:
>> But Scottish football is a joke.


Simon Brooke wrote:
> Come on, Gretna!


Garbro ?
 
B

benjo maso

Guest
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Deke_Rivers wrote:
>
>> bob sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>Well, really, he does have a point. Up until Tom Simpson died, nobody
>>>gave a **** what the riders were taking.

>>
>>
>> Not true, there were several incidents; in 1953 or '54 involving
>> Mallejac who collapsed on the Ventoux in a similar way Simpson did, but
>> they did revive him. There was an article the next day in l' Equipe
>> where the tour doctor complained how the riders took anything they
>> could find without regard for safety, they were already talking about a
>> series of measures to curb doping.
>> Also in 1962, a bunch of riders(Junkermann and others) got mysteriously
>> sick and had to leave the Tour, blaming the fish they had at the
>> restaurant the night before. Again, Dr Dumas voiced his concerns in L'
>> Equipe, and even thought about quitting the Tour. Cartoonist Pellos did
>> a drawing of a fish skeleton where the fish bones had been replaced by
>> syringes.
>>
>>
>>>Considering how vehemently Anquetil fought drug testing, I wonder
>>>if he was doped to the gills during his various GT wins.

>>
>>
>> Yes he was; there's this anecdote, where Anquetil was doing the Trophee
>> Barracchi with an Italian rider(forgot if it was Adorni or someone
>> else), and they decided not to take anything. They won, but after the
>> race Anquetil said it was the hardest and he'd never do it again! he
>> also refused to go through testing after he beat the Hour Record in
>> 1967, so his record was never accepted. Anquetil knew what he was
>> doing, he even said that he didn't care if he was going to die in his
>> 50's, which is what happened.
>> PL
>>
>>
>>
>>>~bob

>
>
> Benjo, is that you?



No, I don't use pseudonymes! But some remarks: Pierre/Deke Rivers is right
that the anti-doping movement didn't start with Tommy Simpson's untimely
death. It started fifteen years before, after the Olympic Games in Helsinki
when the Soviet-Union won more golds than any other country, to the dismay
of the USA who insisted thet the Russians must have used doping and that any
athlete should have been tested (if you're convinced you're the best and
you're beaten, you can only assume your opponents must be cheating). A
little later they were more and more supported by sports physicians who
wanted to protect their monopoly over the practice of medicine against the
non-medically schooled soigneurs who had moved into their territory. It was
surely no coincidence that the man who gained the nickname Monsieur
anti-doping in cycle sport was a medical man, Pierre Dumas. In 1955, his
first year as a Tour physician, he was at once confronted with several clear
cases of doping during the Marseille-Avignon stage, when the racers went
over the Mont Ventoux and the Frenchman Jean Malléjac was barely saved from
death.
Concerning Anquetil: yes, of course in any Tour he won, he was using
amphetamines (which by the way was still allowed), just like all of his
opponents. The `Italian rider' Pierre is referring to was Ercole Baldini,
and it was not the Trofeo Baracchi, but the Premio Forlì (a TT-classic in
Baldini's home town). The two were very good friends and Anquetil was always
staying the night at Baldini's house. At dinner one of them suddenly got an
idea: why should we risk our health? It's anyhow only between us and just
for once let's not use amphetamine. They trusted each other and the other
agreed. Next day the finished first and second, but both of them agreed it
had been terrible. They promised to do never such a stupid thing again.
There is also another very telling anecdote, told by a journalist who
during a reunion had to good fortune to share a table with Merckx, Anquetil
and Bobet. Of course, he didn't open his mouth and just listened. At a
certain moment they started to discuss the new anti-doping rules and Bobet
said he had never used it. Anquetil and Merckx didn't believe him for a
second. Winning three time a Tour de France without drugs, not even
amphetamine? Impossible! Nobody could! But Bobet insisted he had never used
doping. Till the moment he admitted: "Of course, I don't exactly know what
kind of products my soigneur was giving me...". Bingo! Merckx and Anquetil
were almost helpless with laughter...

Benjo
 
D

Deke_Rivers

Guest
benjo maso wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Deke_Rivers wrote:
> >
> >> bob sullivan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, really, he does have a point. Up until Tom Simpson died, nobody
> >>>gave a **** what the riders were taking.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not true, there were several incidents; in 1953 or '54 involving
> >> Mallejac who collapsed on the Ventoux in a similar way Simpson did, but
> >> they did revive him. There was an article the next day in l' Equipe
> >> where the tour doctor complained how the riders took anything they
> >> could find without regard for safety, they were already talking about a
> >> series of measures to curb doping.
> >> Also in 1962, a bunch of riders(Junkermann and others) got mysteriously
> >> sick and had to leave the Tour, blaming the fish they had at the
> >> restaurant the night before. Again, Dr Dumas voiced his concerns in L'
> >> Equipe, and even thought about quitting the Tour. Cartoonist Pellos did
> >> a drawing of a fish skeleton where the fish bones had been replaced by
> >> syringes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Considering how vehemently Anquetil fought drug testing, I wonder
> >>>if he was doped to the gills during his various GT wins.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes he was; there's this anecdote, where Anquetil was doing the Trophee
> >> Barracchi with an Italian rider(forgot if it was Adorni or someone
> >> else), and they decided not to take anything. They won, but after the
> >> race Anquetil said it was the hardest and he'd never do it again! he
> >> also refused to go through testing after he beat the Hour Record in
> >> 1967, so his record was never accepted. Anquetil knew what he was
> >> doing, he even said that he didn't care if he was going to die in his
> >> 50's, which is what happened.
> >> PL
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>~bob

> >
> >
> > Benjo, is that you?

>
>
> No, I don't use pseudonymes! But some remarks: Pierre/Deke Rivers is right
> that the anti-doping movement didn't start with Tommy Simpson's untimely
> death. It started fifteen years before, after the Olympic Games in Helsinki
> when the Soviet-Union won more golds than any other country, to the dismay
> of the USA who insisted thet the Russians must have used doping and that any
> athlete should have been tested (if you're convinced you're the best and
> you're beaten, you can only assume your opponents must be cheating). A
> little later they were more and more supported by sports physicians who
> wanted to protect their monopoly over the practice of medicine against the
> non-medically schooled soigneurs who had moved into their territory. It was
> surely no coincidence that the man who gained the nickname Monsieur
> anti-doping in cycle sport was a medical man, Pierre Dumas. In 1955, his
> first year as a Tour physician, he was at once confronted with several clear
> cases of doping during the Marseille-Avignon stage, when the racers went
> over the Mont Ventoux and the Frenchman Jean Malléjac was barely saved from
> death.
> Concerning Anquetil: yes, of course in any Tour he won, he was using
> amphetamines (which by the way was still allowed), just like all of his
> opponents. The `Italian rider' Pierre is referring to was Ercole Baldini,
> and it was not the Trofeo Baracchi, but the Premio Forlì (a TT-classic in
> Baldini's home town). The two were very good friends and Anquetil was always
> staying the night at Baldini's house. At dinner one of them suddenly got an
> idea: why should we risk our health? It's anyhow only between us and just
> for once let's not use amphetamine. They trusted each other and the other
> agreed. Next day the finished first and second, but both of them agreed it
> had been terrible. They promised to do never such a stupid thing again.
> There is also another very telling anecdote, told by a journalist who
> during a reunion had to good fortune to share a table with Merckx, Anquetil
> and Bobet. Of course, he didn't open his mouth and just listened. At a
> certain moment they started to discuss the new anti-doping rules and Bobet
> said he had never used it. Anquetil and Merckx didn't believe him for a
> second. Winning three time a Tour de France without drugs, not even
> amphetamine? Impossible! Nobody could! But Bobet insisted he had never used
> doping. Till the moment he admitted: "Of course, I don't exactly know what
> kind of products my soigneur was giving me...". Bingo! Merckx and Anquetil
> were almost helpless with laughter...
>
> Benjo


Right, it was Baldini! And also the 1955 Tour, not 54...L' Equipe at
the time suggested lifetime disqualification for anyone caught, and the
Tour organization suggested a bunch of really weak measures! In the
'62 incident, Dumas was so disgusted, he was about to abandon pro
cycling but was talked out of it.
Thanks for clearing up the dates and names I had wrong!
Pierre
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Mike Jacoubowsky
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I also want to believe that one
> of my favorite riders, Jens Voight, is also entirely innocent. He's
> never been accused, as far as I know, but the extent of his
> condemnation of drug use has me concerned. I realize that doesn't make
> sense, but it goes to the idea that an entirely moral & ethical rider
> wouldn't put up with the present situation, and would drop out of the
> sport.


Jens is an interesting and attractive character, isn't he?
I don't believe Jens dopes. But then, I don't believe Basso does,
either...

An entirely moral and ethical rider might ride for a team he considered
moral and ethical, even if he considered the rest of the sport tainted.

Straws, you know. I clutch at them.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee
 
B

benjo maso

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>, Mike Jacoubowsky
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> I also want to believe that one
>> of my favorite riders, Jens Voight, is also entirely innocent. He's
>> never been accused, as far as I know, but the extent of his
>> condemnation of drug use has me concerned. I realize that doesn't make
>> sense, but it goes to the idea that an entirely moral & ethical rider
>> wouldn't put up with the present situation, and would drop out of the
>> sport.

>
> Jens is an interesting and attractive character, isn't he?
> I don't believe Jens dopes. But then, I don't believe Basso does,
> either...
>
> An entirely moral and ethical rider might ride for a team he considered
> moral and ethical, even if he considered the rest of the sport tainted.
>
> Straws, you know. I clutch at them.



Riders may have other opinions about what is moral and ethical than the WASA
or the majority of rbr...

Benjo
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:16:29 +0200, Donald Munro <[email protected]>
wrote:

>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
>> involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to even
>> put this out there as a viable solution means you are clueless.

>
>Road ? MTB ? Huge involvement ?


It's one race every four years. How big an involvement is that for a real
professional sport with seasons and series on each continent.

Ron
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From procycling.com:
>>>>
>>>> "Francesco Moser, president of the International Association of Pro
>>>> Riders (ACP) has told Italian TV that one solution to the doping issue
>>>> would be to legalise the use of all products. "If all riders can be
>>>> brought to the same level then we should stick with dope controls. If
>>>> not, then for the professionals perhaps the solution is [total
>>>> legalisation]," he told RAI. Asked about the dangers this move could
>>>> lead to, Moser responded: "In our world, there are a lot of
>>>> dangers." "
>>>>
>>>> Big surprise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Moser is your typical retired pro idiot. Legalization will never happen
>>> and cannot happen because WADA controls drug testing, not the UCI or
>>> Italian cycling federation.
>>>
>>> And if it happens for cycling then it would have to happen for every
>>> Olympic sport. And that's simply not in the cards.
>>>
>>> Why engage in such a bizarre conversation?
>>>
>>>
>>> Magilla

>>
>>
>> Let's see we have a system you hate because it's not hostile enough
>> towards the possible violators that makes the "Inquisition" look fair
>> and you are calling anything else bizarre?
>> Let's just hit all the riders with some Zyklon-B since we know the
>> bastards are guilty and start over. Screw fair hearings.
>> Nuke 'em all and let GOD sort them out! The scary thing is that you
>> seem to think Dickie Pound is GOD!
>> When did you give up doping? Reformed alcoholics and smokers are
>> always the worst, same thing for dopers?
>> Bill C
>>

>
> What Inquisition - are you likening a CAS hearing to that?
>
> I think everybody has their panties in a bunch because Floyd got caught.


HELL YES!!! Staying away from performance enhancing substances is really
getting to me. I'm dying for an apple. Even a carrot, for crying out loud!
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') wrote:

> RonSonic wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:16:29 +0200, Donald Munro
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>>The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
>>>>involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to
>>>>even put this out there as a viable solution means you are clueless.
>>>
>>>Road ? MTB ? Huge involvement ?

>>
>>
>> It's one race every four years. How big an involvement is that for a
>> real professional sport with seasons and series on each continent.

>
> Jesus Christ I have to explain everything. The UCI, USAC and national
> federations consider the Olympics 50x bigger than any other race
> because
> of the television exposure and grant/sponsorship money they get from
> their respective governments/sponsors.


I hate to tell you this, but pro cycling gets less grant/sponsorship
money from the Olympics than from three days of the Tour de France. And
there's eighty days of the Tour de France for every Olympics. The
Olympics could roll over and die and pro cycling's accountants wouldn't
even blink.

The Olympics is, in cycling terms, a minor side-show. The Dauphine Libere
is more important.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
wscott wrote:
> Six of those positives from '99 were Armstrong's. We know about them
> because the L'Equipe reporter duped Armstrong


So Armstrong is a duped cyclist ?
 
M

mtb Dad

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > RonSonic wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:16:29 +0200, Donald Munro
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
> >>>>involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to
> >>>>even put this out there as a viable solution means you are clueless.
> >>>
> >>>Road ? MTB ? Huge involvement ?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's one race every four years. How big an involvement is that for a
> >> real professional sport with seasons and series on each continent.

> >
> > Jesus Christ I have to explain everything. The UCI, USAC and national
> > federations consider the Olympics 50x bigger than any other race
> > because
> > of the television exposure and grant/sponsorship money they get from
> > their respective governments/sponsors.

>
> I hate to tell you this, but pro cycling gets less grant/sponsorship
> money from the Olympics than from three days of the Tour de France. And
> there's eighty days of the Tour de France for every Olympics. The
> Olympics could roll over and die and pro cycling's accountants wouldn't
> even blink.
>
> The Olympics is, in cycling terms, a minor side-show. The Dauphine Libere
> is more important.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?


Except the UCI still has votes for president from all member nations,
and by far most of those care more about the Olympics than the Tour.
Don't confuse your western Euro horizons as the whole world now, Ok?
Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
cycling fully backs doping control.
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:16:29 +0200, Donald Munro
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
>>>>>involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to
>>>>>even put this out there as a viable solution means you are clueless.
>>>>
>>>>Road ? MTB ? Huge involvement ?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's one race every four years. How big an involvement is that for a
>>>real professional sport with seasons and series on each continent.

>>
>>Jesus Christ I have to explain everything. The UCI, USAC and national
>>federations consider the Olympics 50x bigger than any other race
>>because
>> of the television exposure and grant/sponsorship money they get from
>>their respective governments/sponsors.

>
>
> I hate to tell you this, but pro cycling gets less grant/sponsorship
> money from the Olympics than from three days of the Tour de France. And
> there's eighty days of the Tour de France for every Olympics. The
> Olympics could roll over and die and pro cycling's accountants wouldn't
> even blink.
>
> The Olympics is, in cycling terms, a minor side-show. The Dauphine Libere
> is more important.
>



So then why did the UCI subject itself to WADA oversight? According to
you, it's for no reason whatsoever.

The fact is you are wrong and your financials are severely underestimated.

Once again, now pay attention. National federations get millions from
the Olympics. The UCI depedns on this money indirectly.


Magilla
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, mtb Dad
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> > RonSonic wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:16:29 +0200, Donald Munro
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>The UCI will never divest itself from the Olympics given the huge
>> >>>>involvement of track cycling, MTB, road, and now BMX. For you to
>> >>>>even put this out there as a viable solution means you are
>> >>>>clueless.
>> >>>
>> >>>Road ? MTB ? Huge involvement ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's one race every four years. How big an involvement is that for
>> >> a real professional sport with seasons and series on each
>> >> continent.
>> >
>> > Jesus Christ I have to explain everything. The UCI, USAC and
>> > national federations consider the Olympics 50x bigger than any other
>> > race because
>> > of the television exposure and grant/sponsorship money they get
>> > from
>> > their respective governments/sponsors.

>>
>> I hate to tell you this, but pro cycling gets less grant/sponsorship
>> money from the Olympics than from three days of the Tour de France.
>> And there's eighty days of the Tour de France for every Olympics. The
>> Olympics could roll over and die and pro cycling's accountants
>> wouldn't even blink.
>>
>> The Olympics is, in cycling terms, a minor side-show. The Dauphine
>> Libere is more important.

>
> Except the UCI still has votes for president from all member nations,
> and by far most of those care more about the Olympics than the Tour.
> Don't confuse your western Euro horizons as the whole world now, Ok?
> Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> cycling fully backs doping control.


I back doping control. Where did you get the suggestion that I didn't?
The fact that pro cycling doesn't need the Olympics has nothing whatever
to do with whether controlling dope is a good idea or not.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.