Uci and Vino



rusty nuts

New Member
Nov 6, 2012
4
0
0
any thoughts on the uci investigation into the claims Vinokourov bribed Kolobnev to throw the 2010 Liege? Is thier problem with the bribe, or just that it was not them on the recieving end of the donation this time?
This is just spin to deflect away from the armstrong issue.
 
if it is meant to distract from the armstrong story, uci show themselves to be inept at controlling a narrative. in their statement announcing the new investigation, they make mention that they did not pursue an investigation earlier as they had no proof. hopefully, someone on their staff makes the chums in charge aware that one opens an investigation to gather proof and then uses that proof to take the accused to a hearing. for pat and hein, the party is over.
 
Nope. No problem with the bribe. The man with the money wins.

Bribes in cycling are as old as doping. No big deal.

Vino is obviously a capitalist.
 
slovakguy said:
 for pat and hein, the party is over.
I suspect the hangman is preparing two very special nooses, one for Hein and one for Pat. Hoping it will be a public hanging.
 
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/11/news/italian-paper-prints-emails-supporting-charge-that-alexandre-vinokourov-bought-2nd-liege_263707

Does it take a rocket scientist to figure this one out?
A couple of dull tools to be communicating about this via email...
I hope (although it won't happen) the UCI makes an example out of them. But I'm probably putting the cart before the horse as the UCI first needs to have the guts to find them guilty of something, and we all know that's not a foregone conclusion...
 
Originally Posted by rusty nuts .

true. this is a traditional "arrangement " between teams as old as the sport.
I read about this in either The Rider or Dog in a Hat (both excellent books) . A single good result was pretty much a garantee of a contract for the coming season. You'd basically bribe your breakaway partners who already had some success with the winnings you were about to receive i.e. you'd essentially get the podium but forfeit the cash.
 
No it doesn't take rocket scientists to work this out......... because rocket scientists, (although having better manners than you), would presumably has as much understanding as the workings of the peloton as you have.
The point of the thread was to make the point that the UCI are inconsistent in the enforcement of the rules across the sport, and have damaged the sport far more than the riders by doing so.
Now the spotlight is on them regarding their incompetence regarding Armstrong, they are trying (poorly) to regain face, by publicly dealing with (in cycling terms) fairly minor infractions. This is well known to happen, and I did not endorse the act, but only the reaction of the UCI to the infraction as a publicity stunt.
 
Oh dear, I have appeared to touch a(nother) nerve. Wringing hands and knashing of teeth to follow. A little advice: wearing your emotions on your forehead is not a good look.

Glad you were able to figure it out the motives of the UCI - guess it must be rather elementary when you're simply a critic on the outside looking in. Well done, my good sir./img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif
That the UCI is incompetent has been covered by more threads on this forum than you have years of life. You're beating a dead horse, kemosabe.

Hey Steve, you got another applicant for thread etiquette gestapo...

Peace, always.
 
Originally Posted by rusty nuts .

true. this is a traditional "arrangement " between teams as old as the sport.
In pro races this is to be expected. In the world championships, with national teams, perhaps less so. And in the Olympic Games, with national teams and a historical tradition of "amateurism," even less so.

But that's what you get when the rules are changed.
 
And if they're caught doing it, the guilty parties should be strung up right next to Lance...fraud is fraud is fraud...
 

Similar threads