Summary of the Astana situation
- Thread starter Bro Deal
- Start date
Thanks for posting this.
The article includes a lot of information that sums up how I feel about the team and what I think was a foolish decision on some riders joining the team.
A noteworthy exerpt:
The article includes a lot of information that sums up how I feel about the team and what I think was a foolish decision on some riders joining the team.
A noteworthy exerpt:
Another experpt that sums up my feeling. I know I wondered at the wisdom of these guys but figured Alberto might not have many options:
"I won’t be signing any petitions to “Let Levi (and Astana) Ride,” although I do feel sorry for some of the folks caught up in this wreck, particularly Chris Horner. Leipheimer, Contador, and the others should have exercised a little more common sense and signed elsewhere. Why were they all so blind to the huge risks involved in joining this squad?"
Finally, I always wondered why they were granted a Pro Tour license for 2008. They should have had it revoked with the doping issues from 2007.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Pro Tour licenses are revoked for a couple of positive tests, then cycling probably won't have any sponsors left in a couple of years. As much as Astana are probably culpable for a lot their rider's indiscretions, sponsors can't be held totally responsible for their rider's doping. It is just impossible for them to track their riders 24/7. Should Cofidis be responsible for Cristian Moreni testing positive? I'd rather that the DS is forced to be sacked after multiple indiscretions of riders on the team perhaps. At least he's going to take an interest in making sure his team is clean. Maybe sponsors should be fined when a rider tests positive. But remember that a rider testing positive is a huge publicity blow to a sponsor in any case.hawkeye87 said:
The system needs rules, procedures and consistency. At the moment, everyone is clamoring to take their own subjective action for partly political reasons. For example, the ToC leaving out three Rock Racing riders who were cleared by the UCI. ASO"s and RCS's exclusion of Astana. All these decisions are arbitrary. And a sponsor and team at the start of the year has no idea which race organizer has a pet grudge against them or one of their riders, or wants to make headlines. Races that don't follow the sanctioned guidelines should be penalized or removed from the sanctioned list IMO.
The UCI letting Rasmussen start the Tour even though he had missed several OOC tests appears to be the last straw for the ASO. Whether the UCI did it on purpose or was simply incompetent, they did not shoot themselves in the foot. They blew their lower leg off.Crankyfeet said:
There cannot be any consistency until the UCI can be trusted to take the doping issue seriously. The UCI is all over the place. They threaten Jaksche for talking. They are preventing VDB from racing. They have blackballed Hamilton. They give Contador free pass. They pay money to a lawyer to whitewash Armstrong's EPO positives. They appear to have a special relationship with Bruyneel that demands that they defend him no matter what. They leak info about the timing of random testing to certain teams. Phonak and Astana are targeted for testing while other teams are left alone. It is hard to come up with a logical reason for the UCI's behavior.
The UCI needs to be decapitated.
Yes everyone should respect the laws.Crankyfeet said:
Current problems, lawas are not applicated and 60% of the people are outlaws, and the sheriffs just reprimands the samll fish.
By themself the more honest people have reacted and are trying to restore a trusted system.
The decisions are arbitrary because of the way UCI handles the sport. But come on, Astana as a sponsor clearly supports doping in their team, and as such don't deserve a ProTour license. I agree that rules, procedures and consistency are required, but they should start with the UCI. If the body that oversees the sport itself doesn't follow its own rules consistently, how can you expect anything but chaos in the sport?Crankyfeet said:
I thought Rasmussen broke an ASO rule, not a UCI rule? It was up to the team (Rabo) to inform the ASO that their rider had breached the ASO rule. But it would have been nice if UCI had just passed along the message.Bro Deal said:
We all agree there should be consistency. We all agree that the UCI have been inconsistent. But we need a UCI. We just don't need this one. We can't destroy it and then have another one take its place that oversees the national federations and feeds into the IOC. But it probably should be decapitated. What needs to be done IMHO is that the national federations all get together and make these idiots accountable and proceed with the guillotine.
ASO will fark the sport like any promoter. Their interest is in the spectacle, they couldn't give a faecal sample about the effect doping has on the health of riders and juniors. They don't care IMO, so long as the French police don't catch anyone ala Festina.
Says who? Because their riders had a few positive tests? Because Kazakhstan has a lot of organized crime? Because they didn't get rid of the sponsor as well as just about the whole management team?TheDarkLord said:
Yes, they probably don't care about doping. But neither did Deutsche Telekom (U of Freiburg). What about Rabo who knew all about Rasmussen's lies on his whereabouts last year? As far as I'm concerned, Rabo's breach is hard evidence, not subjective suspicion. What about Riis and CSC? What about Quickstep? How about Liquigas?
Apparently the "TDF rule" was put inside UCI rules after an ASO request.Crankyfeet said:
EPO use on TDF was been detectable by their performances around 1993-4. In 1996 with Riis, everyone has seen the Riis' gag. 2 years later Festina's affair happened.
Was UCI warned about EPO before? By who ? ASO ? Others organisers? And what has done UCI after Festina?
Similar threads
