UCI grant Saiz ProTour licence....



Yes I do know that... And more to the point I do agree that Saiz may know where the bodies are buried. But for me the contradiction of allowing Saiz to retain his license whereas Ullrich and Basso aren't allowed to race is much worse for the image of the sport than letting all of them back. At least UCI can claim that it was forced to do so due to legal technicalities. And if they are serious about cleaning house then they could get them afterwards (it seems that whoever is wanted caught gets caught in the end). Now it's just ridiculously stupid and one-sided.
 
DV1976 said:
Yes I do know that... And more to the point I do agree that Saiz may know where the bodies are buried. But for me the contradiction of allowing Saiz to retain his license whereas Ullrich and Basso aren't allowed to race is much worse for the image of the sport than letting all of them back. At least UCI can claim that it was forced to do so due to legal technicalities. And if they are serious about cleaning house then they could get them afterwards (it seems that whoever is wanted caught gets caught in the end). Now it's just ridiculously stupid and one-sided.

I agree 100%.

Saiz should have been removed in 1998, in my opinion.
Along with the Virenque and rest of the rotten bunch.

But we know that the sport was on it's knees then - and the UCI not only allowed the likes of Saiz to stay, it (UCI) supped with the devil by indulging Heras, Armstrong, Landis etc.

As cycling fans we're being ****** on - in my opinion.
 
****** on by the UCI because they get a lot of money via sponsorship by letting the big, high profile riders through the net. If they sent down everyone they caught, applied the rule to the letter in every case they wouldn't have a sport, simple as that. No sport = no sponsorship and the UCI would be out of their jobs. Money and power are corrupting them it seems (no suprises there). So they catch the small fish to give the impression they are doing something and let the big fish go to keep the sport acceptable for the big sponsors. A simple economic model that makes perfect sense.
 
Eldrack said:
****** on by the UCI because they get a lot of money via sponsorship by letting the big, high profile riders through the net. If they sent down everyone they caught, applied the rule to the letter in every case they wouldn't have a sport, simple as that. No sport = no sponsorship and the UCI would be out of their jobs. Money and power are corrupting them it seems (no suprises there). So they catch the small fish to give the impression they are doing something and let the big fish go to keep the sport acceptable for the big sponsors. A simple economic model that makes perfect sense.

I've no doubt you're right, Eld.
Money is king and the UCI will turn any whichway.

But as a fan I still feel we're being really shortchanged these days (drugs and all).

I'm lucky enough to have seen cycling back in the 1980's when it was relatively clean.
Rant over.
 
limerickman said:
I've no doubt you're right, Eld.
Money is king and the UCI will turn any whichway.

But as a fan I still feel we're being really shortchanged these days (drugs and all).

I'm lucky enough to have seen cycling back in the 1980's when it was relatively clean.
Rant over.


I would point out that Basso and Jan are far from "small fish" and yes Basso can come back some time but Jan is 34 I believe Dec.2, if memory serves.
 
Eldrack said:
****** on by the UCI because they get a lot of money via sponsorship by letting the big, high profile riders through the net. If they sent down everyone they caught, applied the rule to the letter in every case they wouldn't have a sport, simple as that. No sport = no sponsorship and the UCI would be out of their jobs. Money and power are corrupting them it seems (no suprises there). So they catch the small fish to give the impression they are doing something and let the big fish go to keep the sport acceptable for the big sponsors. A simple economic model that makes perfect sense.
I agree that the logic you are describing is the prevailing logic in the UCI. I don't agree with that however...
If UCI was sincere about tackling doping they could follow France's example. Random, all-year round blood tests and not just that. They could ask teams or sponsors to contribute a small percentage of their budget to cover for doping tests costs. Sponsors would be happy to oblige as it would mean good publicity (with the right spin). T-Mobile is a good example. OK maybe riders would have to take a small reduction in earnings but it's better than unemployment.
I believe that the racing calendar is doable without dopings. Maybe an extra rest day for the grand Tours but it's doable. There is just one way for professional cycling to go and that's to do whatever possible to clean house and prove to the public that it means business.
 
DV1976 said:
...They could ask teams or sponsors to contribute a small percentage of their budget to cover for doping tests costs. Sponsors would be happy to oblige as it would mean good publicity (with the right spin). T-Mobile is a good example. OK maybe riders would have to take a small reduction in earnings but it's better than unemployment.
Not sure. With less PEDs, they can earn a lot of money if prices of Fuentes' serives were correct!
And they could stay healthy!

DV1976 said:
I believe that the racing calendar is doable without dopings. Maybe an extra rest day for the grand Tours but it's doable. There is just one way for professional cycling to go and that's to do whatever possible to clean house and prove to the public that it means business.
It's doable, beginning of the most stages will be slower, less attacks, ...
 
jhuskey said:
I would point out that Basso and Jan are far from "small fish" and yes Basso can come back some time but Jan is 34 I believe Dec.2, if memory serves.
He will be 33
 
cyclingheroes said:
He will be 33


One year off. I couldn't remember if he was already or would be 33 but I am pretty sure I have the date correct. Thanks!
 
jhuskey said:
One year off. I couldn't remember if he was already or would be 33 but I am pretty sure I have the date correct. Thanks!
Yes December 2 is correct, born at 02.12.1973
 
cyclingheroes said:
Yes December 2 is correct, born at 02.12.1973


I have a BD this month and have to think hard to remember my own age,then again maybe I am trying to forget.
 
jhuskey said:
I have a BD this month and have to think hard to remember my own age,then again maybe I am trying to forget.
Don't worry, only people over 29 know their age..:D
 
limerickman said:
\
I'm lucky enough to have seen cycling back in the 1980's when it was relatively clean.
Rant over.
I'm not sure about the 80's.....From the historical readings I have done there has been alot of suggestions that Hinault was a doper. We know Fignon/Delgado was. But to step back in the 70's, look at the Dutch riders on the Ti-Raleigh team.
In America we had riders getting blown away by the Euro's during the 70's. Then we get European influence and then what happens..... Blood boosting in the 1984 Olympics. We have riders competing with the Euro's....

They talk of the American hype of Armstrong...Lemond had his going too.... I remember as a junior there were several riders better then him. Of the races I was at when Lemond attended, Lemond did not win. That's not to say he was not a great rider, he was. But as soon as Lemond hit Europe........bam..... He was World Champion. These other riders could no longer hold his wheel. I'm not saying it was drugs, but I have a hard time thinking that Lemond could compete with Knetteman,Kuiper,Hinault, Fignon, and other great highly suspected dopers.

Drugs were not an issue in cycling back then. They went on in the 1970's and the 1980's....As a fan as far back as the early 70's I realized it was just part of the sport.

It was EPO that kicked the speed up..... But using EPO is no different then the speed the older guys used. It's both doping.
 
wolfix said:
I'm not sure about the 80's........
Drugs were not an issue in cycling back then. They went on in the 1970's and the 1980's....As a fan as far back as the early 70's I realized it was just part of the sport.

It was EPO that kicked the speed up..... But using EPO is no different then the speed the older guys used. It's both doping.
There is a big difference between 80's drugs and EPO.
With 80's drugs it was impossible to have big improvements as we have seen with a combination of EPO and others drugs.
Without EPO Riis would have never won TDF, Chiappucci, Jalabert would have never been great climbers, ... and Lance ...

In Brazil, I saw a marathon runner who cutted the line in first, and did a "wheel" after the race, his time was under 2H10 if my memory is good. This world-unknown man has disappeared, maybe some people said him he has
roue-anim.gif
too overdone...
I don't know if we can find a video of this race on the web, but it's a good exemple of what you can do with EPO ( amarathon and a wheel).
 
poulidor said:
There is a big difference between 80's drugs and EPO.
With 80's drugs it was impossible to have big improvements as we have seen with a combination of EPO and others drugs.
The doping today is more powerful....But if everyone is doing it, it levels the field. And it seems at the top level , everyone is doing it. And like the old doping practices, you still have to be a fantastic athlete to win even with dope.
 
wolfix said:
The doping today is more powerful....But if everyone is doing it, it levels the field. And it seems at the top level , everyone is doing it. And like the old doping practices, you still have to be a fantastic athlete to win even with dope.
Be good if one of the riders on this web-site did a time trial on the track for an hour measured the performance. Then obtained some EPO and tried the same ride and share the results with us. Anyone ?
 
whiteboytrash said:
Be good if one of the riders on this web-site did a time trial on the track for an hour measured the performance. Then obtained some EPO and tried the same ride and share the results with us. Anyone ?
Back in the day I doped [white cross] while cycling.......Not in competition because it was something that scared me. I was afraid my heart was going to explode.....
However....
The sprint events were what interested me....... That was where I had some talent. I knew right away that roids were the ticket there. [I had a cousin who was a power lifter and was familiar with roids. So I was around the gym where they being used.} But anyone who has been around roids can see the side affects. I was too vain to go that route......But I have a feeling that back then a few riders at nationals on the track were pumped........

Of course dope with training makes an individual stronger. Doping in itself cannot make you a climber and able to compete with other doping climbers. You have to be a climber to begin with.

There is an excellent chance that LA still would have won the TDF if the TDF was 100% clean. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. And now that we have strong indications that JU was doped, and we assume that LA was doped, we know now that LA is still a better TDf rider then JU......
I doubt that cycling would look much different in a 100% dope free enviroment then it does today as far as the top ten riders in specific areas of cycling.
 
wolfix said:
Back in the day I doped [white cross] while cycling.......Not in competition because it was something that scared me. I was afraid my heart was going to explode.....
However....
The sprint events were what interested me....... That was where I had some talent. I knew right away that roids were the ticket there. [I had a cousin who was a power lifter and was familiar with roids. So I was around the gym where they being used.} But anyone who has been around roids can see the side affects. I was too vain to go that route......But I have a feeling that back then a few riders at nationals on the track were pumped........

Of course dope with training makes an individual stronger. Doping in itself cannot make you a climber and able to compete with other doping climbers. You have to be a climber to begin with.

There is an excellent chance that LA still would have won the TDF if the TDF was 100% clean. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. And now that we have strong indications that JU was doped, and we assume that LA was doped, we know now that LA is still a better TDf rider then JU......
I doubt that cycling would look much different in a 100% dope free enviroment then it does today as far as the top ten riders in specific areas of cycling.


Let's also take into consideration that LA may be abetter doper. :D
 
wolfix said:
The doping today is more powerful....But if everyone is doing it, it levels the field. And it seems at the top level , everyone is doing it. And like the old doping practices, you still have to be a fantastic athlete to win even with dope.
I have newer seen Riis,... as a fantastic athlete.

Every rider can't pay expensive drugs and doctor as Ferrari.
Some rich teams, as had done Festina, can have a big agenda
Some countries have strict laws against doping, ...

Then I don't believe that all riders are on the same line with doping as they were without.
 
wolfix said:
Of course dope with training makes an individual stronger. Doping in itself cannot make you a climber and able to compete with other doping climbers. You have to be a climber to begin with.
An exemple, Jalabert was not a real climber but with EPO he became a challenger for the winning of TDF.

There is some recent posts above LA and his many reasons of his improvement... For me it was a tale, I think he makes a verbal slip-up (is it correct) on his last TDF podium.
 

Similar threads