Tailwind Sports made the right move

[Crankyfeet]

I think Wolfix has a point. That irrespective of whether your team plans to be clean or not, the uncertainty of what returns you are going to get on your approx. $10million per annum sponsorship, is the main factor that is discouraging sponsors. If cycling continues to be perceived as a very dirty sport to the masses, then all investors/sponsors, good or bad, are smeared with the same mud/brush.

There is a very competitive market for sponsorship dollars. And other sports at the moment offer a much more predictable return.

But the quest to clean up the sport must continue IMHO. Only with less **** fights and less victimization of cyclists as the only ones to blame for doping and the doping culture.

You are new to cycling........ You want to believe what is written in propaganda brochures, not what actually has occurred in the sport.
How credible is T-M???? It was discovered in the last year that systematic doping was happening.
The ASO has been fighting doping since Festina???? You make no sense........... I do not remember anything that the ASO has done to combat doping. You claim Discovery is the dirtiest team, but we have proof that T-M was....... So if the ASO has been combatting doping, then why has T-M and Discovery owned the TDF since Festina?
How many positives have there been in any ASO sanctioned event since Festina excluding this year?
Name them........ Name one big name or contender that has had a positive........ Pantani is the only one I can think of........ David Miller was busted, but not by the cycling powers. If the ASO are combatting doping, then they are doing a real bad job.
However, we know JU was dirty, you claim LA was , and yet those 2 riders was welcomed with open arms into the ASO sanctioned events.....

The smirk test..........
This was posted on cyclingnews today........



Read what the last line reads........

It seems that the teams do not know what the rules are..........

 

[Bro Deal]

You are new to cycling........ You want to believe what is written in propaganda brochures, not what actually has occurred in the sport.
How credible is T-M???? It was discovered in the last year that systematic doping was happening.

You are not going to roll out that old argument are you? I've been around long enough to watch the EPO era develop from the beginning, and unlike you I still have my memory intact so that I can remember how things have changed over the years. My memory has not become a diffuse haze that results in false memories of the 90s being equivalent to the 70s.

Some T-Mobile members admitted organized dope (which I stil have a jersey from and it still fits)? Is it any different than Armstrong encouraging his teammates to use EPO in 1995 and insisting that no one who was not doping would be allowed on the '95 Motorola's '95 Tour team? All teams had systemic doping programs in the mid 90s.

After Festina things changed. And this is something that you just don't seem to grasp: Over time things change. Should I repeat it again? Over time things change. After Festina many teams had to give up their doping programs for fear of criminal prosecution. Other teams decided that this was an opportunity; if other teams gave up their programs then the teams that kept their programs would have an advantage. They moved their riders Spain.

The ASO has been fighting doping since Festina???? You make no sense........... I do not remember anything that the ASO has done to combat doping.

Aside from trying to exclude Virenque but having the UCI force the ASO to allow him to race? Or preventing those, like Di Luca, who are involved in doping scandals from racing? Or forcing the OP riders out? Or holding the UCI's feet to the fire? If if were not for the race organizers, the UCI would have done nothing since Festina.

However, we know JU was dirty, you claim LA was , and yet those 2 riders was welcomed with open arms into the ASO sanctioned events.....

I don't just claim that LA was doping. It was proved he was using EPO. Case closed. They were welcomed until it was proved that Armstrong was using EPO and Ullrich was involved in blood doping.

Read what the last line reads........

It seems that the teams do not know what the rules are..........

Second tier teams have always had a hard time keeping sponsors and they have never had any guarantees that they will be invited to big events. But with the ASO's triumph over the UCI, the Pro Continental teams' chances of getting into the Tour and P-R just went up a lot. Instead of having one wildcard, the Tour will have four if they invite twenty teams and only sixteen ProTour teams for the 2008 season as they said they would do at the end of the 2006 season. The Giro and Vuelta will have up to six wildcards.

The teams are just trying to blame their own failures to find sponsors on others, the same things that Disco is attempting to do. Any sponsor that signed for the 2008 season will have a much better situation than the last two years.

 

[cyclingheroes]

..............

Aside from trying to exclude Virenque but having the UCI force the ASO to allow him to race? ..........

Virenque sued himself in. It wasn't the UCI (although they were not unhappy about the court decision)

 

[wolfix]

After Festina things changed. And this is something that you just don't seem to grasp: Over time things change. Should I repeat it again? Over time things change. After Festina many teams had to give up their doping programs for fear of criminal prosecution. Other teams decided that this was an opportunity; if other teams gave up their programs then the teams that kept their programs would have an advantage. They moved their riders Spain.

After Festina nothing changed until the ProTour. Are you delusional? What teams gave up their doping programs for fear of criminal prosecution? T-M never moved their riders to Spain.........

Aside from trying to exclude Virenque but having the UCI force the ASO to allow him to race? Or preventing those, like Di Luca, who are involved in doping scandals from racing? Or forcing the OP riders out? Or holding the UCI's feet to the fire? If if were not for the race organizers, the UCI would have done nothing since Festina.

All this happened after the ProTour was established, so what's your point?

Second tier teams have always had a hard time keeping sponsors and they have never had any guarantees that they will be invited to big events.

Again you show so little knowledge. Belgium has never had a problem attracting sponsors for their smaller teams. The fact they lost close to half of their sponsors shows that sponsors want no part of the politics of cycling.
Big events never have been part of the Belgium lesser teams programs.

The teams are just trying to blame their own failures to find sponsors on others, the same things that Disco is attempting to do.

Explain what the failures of these teams are?????

Any sponsor that signed for the 2008 season will have a much better situation than the last two years.

You need to explain why then no major sponsors are coming into cycling, and the major ones are exiting or like T-M are on the verge of it. .........

 

[Bro Deal]

After Festina nothing changed until the ProTour. Are you delusional? What teams gave up their doping programs for fear of criminal prosecution? T-M never moved their riders to Spain.........

The French teams definitely did. The information that is currently available suggests that many teams stopped their team supported doping and left the riders to their own devices. T-Mobile stopped their doping program. Why was Ullrich going to Madrid for his doping?

All this happened after the ProTour was established, so what's your point?

What is your point? You keep saying that current doping busts are just the ASO and UCI fighting with each other and soon everything will go back to the way it was. Where's your evidence? Was Landis' positive (from a French lab in a French event) a UCI plot to damage the ASO? Did the UCI spike the sample? DId they also spike Vino's blood? Are you one of those conspiracy nutters?

BTW, Di Luca was banned by the ASO before the ProTour, but the ASO wanted to get some blows in before the war started I suppose; the Great Karnak told them to do it.

Again you show so little knowledge. Belgium has never had a problem attracting sponsors for their smaller teams. The fact they lost close to half of their sponsors shows that sponsors want no part of the politics of cycling. Big events never have been part of the Belgium lesser teams programs.

Explain how the UCI and ASO arguing over which teams get automatic entry to the TdF has caused a potential sponsor of a second tier regional team to decide not to go through with the deal. Explain how the the potential for more wildcards in P-R (since teams like Euskatel will no longer being taking up a slot) has caused sponsors to bail.

You need to explain why then no major sponsors are coming into cycling, and the major ones are exiting or like T-M are on the verge of it. .........

It's easy. It's doping. The sport is dirty and potential major sponsors do not want their brand to be tarred with it. It has nothing to do with the ASO and the UCI arguing.

 

[wolfix]

T

It's easy. It's doping. The sport is dirty and potential major sponsors do not want their brand to be tarred with it. It has nothing to do with the ASO and the UCI arguing.

It has everything to do with the ASO and the UCI power struggle....... Any one that was a fan of cycling knew doping was going on since I have followed the sport. The sponsors knew, and yet they still sponsored the teams. The UCI knew and the ASO knew. Get a clue, no one that is involved in the sport cares who's doping, as long as there is racing. With the uncertainty of who is going to be allowed to race, sponsors are not doing to jump in........

The NFL is loaded with top drawer sponsors. And yet the league is viewed to be filled with dope and ghetto gangsters. If sponsors cared, they would see a dramatic fall off of numbers. Pick up an "Advertising Age" and see if the numbers are falling.




Very few busts happened before the ProTour....... BTW, Di Luca was not busted for dope. His suspension was for being around the wrong people.......And to carry it farther, the "oil for dope" did not evolve from cycling doping........... The cycling powers are not the ones who started Di Luca legal problems.

So what's your point??????

You claim everyone was doped to the gills, and yet we seen few busts before the ProTour........ Give me a few big names that actually got busted..........You can't. Of all the names in the sport that are considered big, your list is going to be very small. Explain how and why that went on.......
We know T-M was involved in a organized program until who knows when....... As much as you claim to know, with your very limited knowledge of the sport , you do not know if it was in place when they fired the doctors last spring. And yet, the UCI never caught the sneaky bastards.
You claim Discovery had the inside to the UCI....and yet you claim the UCI is cracking down on doping........ What is it?

Your knowledge of the sport is limited. The ASO and the UCI are not arging over automatic entries. They are arguing over control of the sport. Big difference. Automatic entry is a small component of the control situation.
The sponsors are bailing not because of automatic entry, but because they are afraid that the ASO will ban their riders from a race when the UCI has approved them for racing. That is the uncertainty the sponsors are facing. If the ASO is allowed to ban riders who meet the UCI criteria, other race promoters will follow.......
Bettini and Zabel are the recent examples.

Read what Staplton has to say........