Moser advocates legalization



C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>> Something tells me that outside of the USOC (and the Chinese OC, I
>> suppose), there aren't these massive money gathering national olympic
>> organizations.

>
>
> I dunno...the Aussies get pretty gay about the Olympics, especially their
> track team. Every Olympics, seems like Australia has like 9 lawsuits in
> the que filed by riders who think they should be on the Olympic team, but
> weren't chosen. The Aussie national team program seems to put a lot of
> stock in the Olympics.
>


They may get fired up, but that's not necessarily reflected in thier
budgets. Also, the Aussies, Brits, et. al. get awfully fired up about the
Commonwealth Games, too. Far more than the US does about the Pan Am games.
That said, I don't know how much funding gets overlapped between the CG and
the OG. Further, in the US there is/was bonus money paid out to top placings
at world championships by the USOC, so the waters are fairly muddied..

But the essence of your point was direct and indirect funding of cycling via
respective national olympic committees and the IOC. I know that back in the
late 80's and early 90's the quadrennial budget of the USOC was about $400
million. Remember that a lot of nations were laughing at the US for bragging
about it's $40k superbikes:

http://www.olympics.com.au/files/46/AOC2004AnnualReport_web_version.pdf

states a Total Revenue From Ordinary Activities for the 2001-2004
quadrennium as $70,842,245 (Australian dollars)


Compare that with:

USOC budget projections call for $172M in revenue in '06

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2006020627
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Pascal Richard made a big deal of winning the gold but within a few weeks, most
> people were ignoring him. Bettini has been much more successful in letting that drag
> on but that's because he's Bettini.


And that gay gold helmet.
 
M

mtb Dad

Guest
benjo maso wrote:
> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> benjo maso wrote:
> > "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > >
> > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > >> mtb Dad wrote:
> > >> > Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> > >> > cycling fully backs doping control.
> > >>
> > >> You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
> > >> confirmed the opposite.
> > >
> > > This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
> > > concern
> > > over the problem of doping."
> > > http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"
> > >
> > > This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
> > > (79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
> > > cycling."
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news

> >
> >
> > What I wrote was that when Nestlé in 2001 was launching Aquarel, a new
> > brand
> > of mineral water, it considered a contract with the Tour organization. It
> > was only worried about the image of cyling - the Festina affair was only
> > three years old - because they presented Aquarel as something as pure as
> > could be. To learn to what extent the many stories about the use of doping
> > had damaged the image of cycle sport, the company sponsored surveys in the
> > countries it planned to market its new product (France, Belgium,
> > Luxembourg,
> > Spain, Portugal, and Germany).From these it emerged that the effect of all
> > the recent revelations was virtually zero, so that the company directors
> > could confidently pay two million euros for their contract. The general
> > reaction was: « Ne nous emmerdez pas avec le dopage. Ok, ils se dopent,
> > mais
> > c'est tellement dur... » ("Stop bugging us with doping. OK, they're doping
> > themselves, but it's so hard ..."). That might be quite different from the
> > results of the surveys yoy're referring to, but it is not. The results of
> > such surveys are all depending of the way how the questions are phrased.
> > For
> > instance, **** Pound would certainly affirm that he is concerned over the
> > problem of doping. So would dr. Fuentes, and yet they probably are seeing
> > the problem it a slightly different way. And of course, if people are
> > associating doping with cycling, it doesn't mean they do really mind.
> > Of course, in the USA the results of the Nestlé survey would probably
> > be
> > quite different. There is no doubt that Americans are seeing the doping
> > problem generally quite differently as Europeans. As Daniel Coyle wrote
> > in
> > Lance Armstrongs War:
> > "For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with
> > goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something cyclists are
> > known to do. C=est le métier, the French say: It=s the job.
> >
> > It=s the classic prelapsarian divide; the same divergence that occurswhen
> > a
> > politican is caught out with a mistress: Americans get outragedCHow could
> > he? while Europeans shrugCBut of course".
> >
> >
> >
> > Benjo

>
> >Do you have a link to the Nestle survey?

>
> The best I could find is
> http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/tdf02_mag_sponsor_itw.html
>
> >I suspect it was more about the question, "Will our sponsorship of the
> >sport hurt us, or help us?"

>
> That's what Nestlé wanted to know, but of course the questions were quite
> different.
>
> >That could easily be answered no it will not hurt, because people still
> >buy products based on awareness and perceived value, and no so much on
> >ethical associations (Festina watches, SUVs, tobacco, petrochemical
> >products are examples). But while the same people might buy the Festina
> >watch, they could also answer that they think doping should be
> >eradicated because they know the effect on fair play and young people.

>
> No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In the traditional European cycling countries
> most people don't give a damn of the effect doping is supposed to have on
> "fair play and young people". Two or three days after the news that Landis
> had tested positive, there was a similar survey in Holland with more or less
> the same results as the Nestlé survey.
>
> Benjo


I'll take your word on the Holland survey; I don't read Dutch. So how
do we reconcile the two different results? Clearly the EU survey shows
a public interest in eliminating doping. The Nestle one shows that
some sponsors will stay, because of fan, um, acceptance of
contradiction. Are cycling fans part of the 30% who did not say they
want something done? If so, who should have more influence? Kind of
takes us back to **** fighting and bear baiting if we allow the more
'tolerant' fans to permit, or even encourage through their consumer
behaviour, a doped sport.

Let's leave aside the the possibility that Aquarel has already made
it's decision to sponsor the Tour and therefore must justify it, at
least to itself.
 
B

benjo maso

Guest
"mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
benjo maso wrote:
> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> benjo maso wrote:
> > "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > >
> > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > >> mtb Dad wrote:
> > >> > Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> > >> > cycling fully backs doping control.
> > >>
> > >> You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
> > >> confirmed the opposite.
> > >
> > > This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
> > > concern
> > > over the problem of doping."
> > > http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"
> > >
> > > This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
> > > (79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
> > > cycling."
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news

> >
> >
> > What I wrote was that when Nestlé in 2001 was launching Aquarel, a new
> > brand
> > of mineral water, it considered a contract with the Tour organization.
> > It
> > was only worried about the image of cyling - the Festina affair was only
> > three years old - because they presented Aquarel as something as pure as
> > could be. To learn to what extent the many stories about the use of
> > doping
> > had damaged the image of cycle sport, the company sponsored surveys in
> > the
> > countries it planned to market its new product (France, Belgium,
> > Luxembourg,
> > Spain, Portugal, and Germany).From these it emerged that the effect of
> > all
> > the recent revelations was virtually zero, so that the company directors
> > could confidently pay two million euros for their contract. The general
> > reaction was: « Ne nous emmerdez pas avec le dopage. Ok, ils se dopent,
> > mais
> > c'est tellement dur... » ("Stop bugging us with doping. OK, they're
> > doping
> > themselves, but it's so hard ..."). That might be quite different from
> > the
> > results of the surveys yoy're referring to, but it is not. The results
> > of
> > such surveys are all depending of the way how the questions are phrased.
> > For
> > instance, **** Pound would certainly affirm that he is concerned over
> > the
> > problem of doping. So would dr. Fuentes, and yet they probably are
> > seeing
> > the problem it a slightly different way. And of course, if people are
> > associating doping with cycling, it doesn't mean they do really mind.
> > Of course, in the USA the results of the Nestlé survey would
> > probably
> > be
> > quite different. There is no doubt that Americans are seeing the doping
> > problem generally quite differently as Europeans. As Daniel Coyle wrote
> > in
> > Lance Armstrongs War:
> > "For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with
> > goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something cyclists
> > are
> > known to do. C=est le métier, the French say: It=s the job.
> >
> > It=s the classic prelapsarian divide; the same divergence that occurs
> > when
> > a
> > politican is caught out with a mistress: Americans get outragedCHow
> > could
> > he? while Europeans shrugCBut of course".
> >
> >
> >
> > Benjo

>
> >Do you have a link to the Nestle survey?

>
> The best I could find is
> http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/tdf02_mag_sponsor_itw.html
>
> >I suspect it was more about the question, "Will our sponsorship of the
> >sport hurt us, or help us?"

>
> That's what Nestlé wanted to know, but of course the questions were quite
> different.
>
> >That could easily be answered no it will not hurt, because people still
> >buy products based on awareness and perceived value, and no so much on
> >ethical associations (Festina watches, SUVs, tobacco, petrochemical
> >products are examples). But while the same people might buy the Festina
> >watch, they could also answer that they think doping should be
> >eradicated because they know the effect on fair play and young people.

>
> No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In the traditional European cycling countries
> most people don't give a damn of the effect doping is supposed to have on
> "fair play and young people". Two or three days after the news that Landis
> had tested positive, there was a similar survey in Holland with more or
> less
> the same results as the Nestlé survey.
>
> Benjo


>I'll take your word on the Holland survey; I don't read Dutch. So how
>do we reconcile the two different results?
> Clearly the EU survey shows a public interest in eliminating doping.


I don't think so. I read in the offcial report: "As in 2003 a majority of
European Union citzizens cite doping as the main negative aspect of sports
(72 %)." That doesn't mean it certainly shows an interest in eliminating
doping, but in eliminating doping affairs and not in way it could be done.
Unfortunately they failed to ask if they agreed with the current anti-doping
policy.

> The Nestle one shows that some sponsors will stay, because of fan, um,
> acceptance of
>contradiction. Are cycling fans part of the 30% who did not say they
>want something done? If so, who should have more influence? Kind of
>takes us back to **** fighting and bear baiting if we allow the more
>'tolerant' fans to permit, or even encourage through their consumer
>behaviour, a doped sport.


Well, it has always been a doped sport. It was allowed until 1966 and
tolerated until 1998. And it wasn't really a secret. Everybody slightly
interested in cycling knew that at least 90 % of the pro's were doping
themselves. Nevertheless, it was the golden age of cycling. From the 1930's
to the 1950's even more populair than soccer.

>Let's leave aside the the possibility that Aquarel has already made
>it's decision to sponsor the Tour and therefore must justify it, at
> least to itself.


The results cannot have been a surprise and they probably only wanted only a
conformation of what they were believing already.

Benjo
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Pascal Richard made a big deal of winning the gold but within a few
> > weeks, most
> > people were ignoring him. Bettini has been much more successful in letting
> > that drag
> > on but that's because he's Bettini.

>
> And that gay gold helmet.


Hmm, "drag" can have multiple meanings.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
K

Kurgan Gringioni

Guest
mtb Dad wrote:

> > >That could easily be answered no it will not hurt, because people still
> > >buy products based on awareness and perceived value, and no so much on
> > >ethical associations (Festina watches, SUVs, tobacco, petrochemical
> > >products are examples). But while the same people might buy the Festina
> > >watch, they could also answer that they think doping should be
> > >eradicated because they know the effect on fair play and young people.

> >
> > No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In the traditional European cycling countries
> > most people don't give a damn of the effect doping is supposed to have on
> > "fair play and young people". Two or three days after the news that Landis
> > had tested positive, there was a similar survey in Holland with more orless
> > the same results as the Nestlé survey.
> >
> > Benjo

>
> I'll take your word on the Holland survey; I don't read Dutch. So how
> do we reconcile the two different results? Clearly the EU survey shows
> a public interest in eliminating doping. The Nestle one shows that
> some sponsors will stay, because of fan, um, acceptance of
> contradiction. Are cycling fans part of the 30% who did not say they
> want something done? If so, who should have more influence? Kind of
> takes us back to **** fighting and bear baiting if we allow the more
> 'tolerant' fans to permit, or even encourage through their consumer
> behaviour, a doped sport.





Dumbass -


The Euros don't give a damn because they're more realistic. Look at all
the doping in society at large. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, birth
control hormones, viagra, anti-depressants, ritalin, etc. etc. etc.

As an aside, I believe that Americans are more into the good/evil thing
because of the pervasiveness of religiosity in the United States. I
visited Prague last year and the guidebook listed about 100 churches
compared to 9000 bars/nightclubs. Drugs like ecstacy have cost as
little as 1 pound in the UK. The Euros have accepted their drug use. In
the United States, we use all sorts of drugs, but we haven't really
come to terms with it.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.