1998 TDF Saiz: Tell everything?

[Roninho]

I have heard stories that back in '98 during the TDF (the tour de dope/festina) Manolo Saiz was actively trying to get all other teammanagers on board to just all together do a tell everything and be open about it that every team was on dope. In the end not every teammanager agreed and the omerta continued. Apparently the thought was just be open about it that there are none-detectable doping-products that have such a massive impact on the performances that riders will take it, forcing others to also do it or retire.

Assuming the story is true, and taking into account all the dope-problems there have been in cycling in the past 15 years, would it have been better for cycling if they had all broken the omerta?

 

[auscyclefan94]

I have heard stories that back in '98 during the TDF (the tour de dope/festina) Manolo Saiz was actively trying to get all other teammanagers on board to just all together do a tell everything and be open about it that every team was on dope. In the end not every teammanager agreed and the omerta continued. Apparently the thought was just be open about it that there are none-detectable doping-products that have such a massive impact on the performances that riders will take it, forcing others to also do it or retire.

Assuming the story is true, and taking into account all the dope-problems there have been in cycling in the past 15 years, would it have been better for cycling if they had all broken the omerta?

Sponsors would not put money into a sporting team if they legalised performance enhancing products.

 

[ultimobici]

I have heard stories that back in '98 during the TDF (the tour de dope/festina) Manolo Saiz was actively trying to get all other teammanagers on board to just all together do a tell everything and be open about it that every team was on dope. In the end not every teammanager agreed and the omerta continued. Apparently the thought was just be open about it that there are none-detectable doping-products that have such a massive impact on the performances that riders will take it, forcing others to also do it or retire.

Assuming the story is true, and taking into account all the dope-problems there have been in cycling in the past 15 years, would it have been better for cycling if they had all broken the omerta?

Saiz as Messiah of Openness? Is that why he led the Spanish protest at the 98 Tour? Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
More likely he was worried that he might end up like Bruno Roussel, in a prison cell. But if al/ the team managers fessed up, surely they wouldn't put em all in clink?

 

[Roninho]

Saiz as Messiah of Openness? Is that why he led the Spanish protest at the 98 Tour? Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
More likely he was worried that he might end up like Bruno Roussel, in a prison cell. But if al/ the team managers fessed up, surely they wouldn't put em all in clink?

yes, that would more then likely be a factor why he would want to make this move. But that wasn't the question. Would it been a smart move to make? As aussicyclefan allready pointed out, it could (would) have hurted the sponsorship market deeply, and i have no idea how the media would respond. I do think that if they could have pulled it off we would not have had all the negativity with all the doping affaires we had in the last 15 years (pantani, puerto, rasmussen, vino, ricco, landis-1, landis-2, contador, etc. etc. etc.)

 

[hrotha]

I don't know, breaking the omerta is good, but I'm not sure doing it in a "what you gonna do about it/In Your Face" way would help.

 

[Roland Rat]

Saiz as Messiah of Openness? Is that why he led the Spanish protest at the 98 Tour? Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
More likely he was worried that he might end up like Bruno Roussel, in a prison cell. But if al/ the team managers fessed up, surely they wouldn't put em all in clink?

That's nearer the version I heard about at the time, which was not so much Saiz asking for camaraderie between doping DS's, but more of a "I'm not being the only scapegoat" kind of thing. Even though that's exactly what he became.

 

[indurain666]

Saiz as Messiah of Openness? Is that why he led the Spanish protest at the 98 Tour? Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
More likely he was worried that he might end up like Bruno Roussel, in a prison cell. But if al/ the team managers fessed up, surely they wouldn't put em all in clink?

Your ignorance is incredible. It was not a Spanish protest, the whole peloton protested led by Laurent Jalabert, a frenchman.

 

[hrotha]

Your ignorance is incredible. It was not a Spanish protest, the whole peloton protested led by Laurent Jalabert, a frenchman.

It's silly to speak of the protest. It was Jalabert and ONCE as a whole, Luc Leblanc, TVM, etc vs. Riis and Telekom as a whole. Basically the dopers that had been caught or were in a delicate position vs. the dopers that were still good and wanted to go on as if nothing happened.

edit: ok, I figure Leblanc wasn't in trouble at the time.

edit 2: at any rate, it wasn't "the Spanish". It was ONCE and Kelme. Banesto and Vitalicio withdrew because the others had and it would have been bad PR to stay when the press and the fans wanted them all to withdraw to give the French the finger.

 

[tubularglue]

the same Laurent who decided not to race in france, for a time, afterwards ?

seems the suitcase of courage is the closet of denial

 

[frenchfry]

the same Laurent who decided not to race in france, for a time, afterwards ?

seems the suitcase of courage is the closet of denial

Laurent Jalabert.

What to think about this guy who in a way exemplifies the world of cycling.

On the one hand, a superb cyclist. Great to watch, an attacking style and never held anything back. (of course when expressing my admiration for his cycling exploits, it is conditional on the fact that he was assuredly on a #1 doping program).

He is currently the best cycling commentator in France, and apparently an all around super person.

Then there is his ambiguous attitude regarding doping. As a rider, he always took the position that the riders should be left alone and was instrumental in the 1998 protest. As a commentator, he walks around the topic and might say a few words against doping out of the side of his mouth when forced to. Too bad, as he is in a position where he could do some good but would rather play hide and seek on the issue. I have never heard him express a negative opinion about a doper - at least he isn't a hypocrite!

 

[Benotti69]

as for doping scandals hurting the sport, Festina's sale of wathces went up after the TdF 98 scandal. No publicity is bad publicity. Festina are still involved in cycling.

 

[ultimobici]

Your ignorance is incredible. It was not a Spanish protest, the whole peloton protested led by Laurent Jalabert, a frenchman.

Jalabert may have been the rider at the centre of affairs but to think that Saiz was a mere bystander is naive to say the least.

Once led the team protest after TVM withdrew due to being up all night with Gendarmes searching their hotel.

There was a rider protest but Once were the instigators of the Spanish teams' withdrawal. As another poster pointed out Jalabert also took out a Spanish licence. Wonder why?

 

[la.margna]

Sponsors would not put money into a sporting team if they legalised performance enhancing products.

Festina sales skyrocketed after 1998.
Phonak was a team with numerous doping cases, however the findings were that the impact of the cycling sponsoring was very strong and positive.
Furthermore, the pharma industry would probably have a particular interest, considering the decent volume of the doping product market for non-professionals.

but of course, I could not support it and it would be against any moral standards...

 

[Magnus]

Sponsors would not put money into a sporting team if they legalised performance enhancing products.

That makes no sense at all. Nothing really happened when they removed the caffeine limits. Besides: lots of performance enhancing are legal.

 

[Roninho]

That makes no sense at all. Nothing really happened when they removed the caffeine limits. Besides: lots of performance enhancing are legal.

Imo there is quite a difference between removing the caffeine limit and be totally open about most riders using blood doping.

 

[Roninho]

That's nearer the version I heard about at the time, which was not so much Saiz asking for camaraderie between doping DS's, but more of a "I'm not being the only scapegoat" kind of thing. Even though that's exactly what he became.

I'm not sure that is the way things happened. Juan Antonio Samaranch suggested that dope should be legalised which Saiz openly supported (as did Banesto). Two days later his team quit during the stage. At the end of the day (so when they allready quit) there was a police raid in their hotel, but this was also the case for 5 other teams.

A teamdoctor of Once got arrested for importing doping (they found dope during the police raid). However, it looks to me that Saiz and his team were certainly not the scapegoat and got out of this tour relatively unharmed. Saiz did not get an invitation for next years TDF, but this was according the TDF because of his team quiting on the tour. It took more then a decade before Saiz got busted and was done in the sport.

 

[Roninho]

I don't know, breaking the omerta is good, but I'm not sure doing it in a "what you gonna do about it/In Your Face" way would help.

Well i could see this being a massive blow for the sport if there would be a total omerta breakdown. The impact would be huge, but it might be less damaging in the long run. I'm not sure cycling would have survived a all out confession, but imo if it would have survived and had no positives in the last 15 years it would have been in a much better situation right now.

 

[auscyclefan94]

That makes no sense at all. Nothing really happened when they removed the caffeine limits. Besides: lots of performance enhancing are legal.

it makes perfect sense.
So you would invest money in a sport that all it's athletes were taking performance enhancing drugs?

 

[Magnus]

it makes perfect sense.
So you would invest money in a sport that all it's athletes were taking performance enhancing drugs?

If I had money to invest in sport it wouldn't make a difference what substances are on some more or less arbitrary list. If I had the money I would love to sponsor a cycling team as long as they're not doing cocaine or something similar while racing and as long as they don't get busted. Besides there's a difference between products and drugs.

Gels and energybars are performance enhancing. I don't think there're sponsors not putting money into sport because they're legal.

 

[Galic Ho]

Sponsors would not put money into a sporting team if they legalised performance enhancing products.

Wrong. You'd create a whole new market in itself. There would be sponsors and they would make their investments back very quickly. You underestimate the general populace. Our world is riddled with addicts and people looking for shortcuts. If cycling were honest about it's dark past and everyone agreed in theory, drug companies would make a killing. Look at the health bill pushed through in the US for proof. Drug companies stood to lose money. Why? Government can legislate and cap their demands and prices for drugs to make a more cost effective system. You'd have a similar effect to the arms race in the Cold War. Would this system be sustainable? No, not in the long run, but it would work very well in a short period of time.

 

[Benotti69]

it makes perfect sense.
So you would invest money in a sport that all it's athletes were taking performance enhancing drugs?

biggest sponsored event in the world?

FIFA world cup or the Olympic Games?

wonder which has the most PED performances, be a close one 98% of athletes in both doped or higher?

 

[The Hitch]

FIFA world cup or the Olympic Games?

wonder which has the most PED performances, be a close one 98% of athletes in both doped or higher?

which one? Both?

 

[Roninho]

biggest sponsored event in the world?

FIFA world cup or the Olympic Games?

wonder which has the most PED performances, be a close one 98% of athletes in both doped or higher?

Doesn't matter what the actual % is. These events say they are anti-doping, as most big corporations will not sponsor a doped up sport.

It's a whole difference when you openly say your sporters dope and set up a rulebook which approves it.

it is an interesting move to make for a sport, but it would be a tough sell for sponsorship imo.