Chaos in pro cycling: enough is enough!

poulidor

It's worst ot that because Unibet was 19th Pro Tour team!
In 2005 Pro Tour began with 20 teams when all GTs had accepted only 18 as compromise ..
And the following years, UCI continiously fucked them... so in 2008 enough is enough for GT organisers who have left PT !

If we add that Verbruggen is trying to sell PT to investors, ready to spoile the organisers of their TV broadcast rights we can understand the UCI- ASO battle.

__________________
Let Astana and McQuaid whine !

TheDarkLord

I guess Rabobank got brownie points with ASO by kicking out Chicken at the verge of victory during the last Tour. Would someone like Bruyneel have done anything like that? Probably not. I'm not saying that inviting Rabobank and leaving out Astana is a fair decision of course.

jhuskey

Manipulation and backroom colaboration. You have to be in the club or you are out.

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

Crankyfeet

Rabo should have not entered him. Rabo knew he had broken the ASO rule of missing a test within the two months (or one month??) before the race. However the ASO were more interested in planting all the blame on the UCI.

__________________

TheDarkLord

I don't think the issue would have come up if Chicken were not about to snag the yellow jersey. If he were just going for the polka dots jersey, then chances are nothing would have come out, and that is probably what Rabobank was thinking when they entered Chicken into the race. Now, when sponsors violate the rules, it is the job of the overseeing authority to call them to it, and UCI failed miserably there. If teams were to self-police themselves then why bother about having an overseeing authority in the first place?

Aquamarinos

The whereabouts are confidential, so I can't see how the UCI is to blame with the Rasmussen case. It was the Danish federation that brought the whole story into the public, not UCI.

If someone is to blame for the Rasmussen case, it's definetly Rabobank...

TheDarkLord

The UCI knew that Chicken had missed an out of competition test within a month of the Tour. They still didn't alert ASO to that fact and were thus to be blamed for the whole affair. Sure, Rabobank was attempting to bend the rules, but it is the job of the overseeing authority to see that such transgressions are called and acted upon.

Crankyfeet

If what you say is true... then it is only the UCI that had anything to lose. By allowing him to race... they only had themselves at risk. If Ras was not caught, the TdF benefitted. If their negligence was exposed... then they would have mud on their face. Put it down to negligence, not a conspiratorial plot. The whole Danish Cycling Fed, Cassani reveal, and dope in the shoe box story, couldn't have been predicted.

I'm not defending negligence or incompetence. But when a team is excluded arbitrarily on the pretext that it is not doing enough to self-police, you can't turn around and say another team shouldn't have to self-police.

__________________

TheDarkLord

Look, the debate here is not about whether a team has to self-police or not. It is about how the overseeing authority behaves when a team tries to break the rules. So Rabobank tried to break the rules, and when the cat was let out of the bag, they hung Chicken up high and dry, and pulled him from the race. ASO chose to give more weight to the latter and keep the relationship with them. These are the facts without passing any personal judgements on any of the involved parties.

Crankyfeet

Huh?? This whole thread is based on personal judgments. Astana is bad. McQuaid is a wanker. Bruyneel is a dope pusher. The UCI are farkwits. I'm not saying these personal judgments are wrong. But if you want to make the point that only facts should be used in arguments, then DPF might be a better forum for you. They espouse that doctrine. And it would look silly if you used any personal judgments yourself...right?

When was I making a personal judgment? I was just saying that it is inconsistent to exclude a team based on subjective criteria, while you simultaneously include another team that was factually involved in deliberately misleading the authorities (as well as not withdrawing Ras, Rabo knew that he wasn't in Mexico, and that he was supposed to be there, and weren't worried about... ie. they were well aware of what he was doing).

Now don't take any of this personally TDL, I'm just arguing the point I hope...

__________________

TheDarkLord

(1) I was pointing out the facts before indulging in any personal opinions. (2) By "debate", I was referring to the most recent topic today on Rabobank.

And of course, over the whole time you have been clearly saying your personal opinion about ASO and UCI. Not that I was any different of course...

Crankyfeet

Okay... good, no hard feelings. I'm right and you're wrong and it's all settled amicably... . Come to the bar, I'll get you a drink...

__________________

TheDarkLord

Yes, there is inconsistency, but speaking purely from a point of view of looking at sponsors, it is not THAT inconsistent. Astana as a team said last year that they were all clean and new, and we all know what happened in the end. So, when they came with the same story again this year, ASO turned their back on them. If this were the sole factor leading to Astana's exclusion, it would be perfectly ok. Of course, there probably are other factors involved here having to do with politics with UCI, maybe also with Bruyneel, etc., and those are the complications. Now, if Rabobank had stuck with Chicken last year, then chances are that ASO would have snubbed them too. But since they pulled Chicken out at the cost of bad publicity to themselves, ASO decided to overlook the fact that Rabobank was trying to cheat in the first place. Probably not fair, but a lot of things in this world aren't - for instance, LA probably shouldn't have won 7 times in a row...

TheDarkLord

You really are a good spin doctor to deduce this out of this discussion. Of course, I don't really care about winning a debate, and so if it would make you feel better, I can concede defeat.