Astana Licence to be withdrawn?

[JimmyFingers]

we don't agree very often Beno, but that's spot on

By who exactly? Oh yes, other Brits. Lets make an Astana thread about the British....yet again

 

[Escarabajo]

Not if it is an excuse in PR. Banning Ben Johnson changed nothing in sprinting.

So what is the alternative? not banning him? Just because it won't change anything we are not going to do anything.

Why convict a criminal if crime will never go away. What kind of thinking is that?

PD.: I saw that Hothra beat me to it.

 

[hrotha]

Pedantics. One guy was hung out to dry. End off. There are loads of Ben Johnsons still running.

The idea that Cookson is making positive steps is laughable.

For Vino, Ferrari and Astana, we have Sutton, Leinders and Sky, Boonen, Ibaurguren and Q-Step, etc etc etc etc etc etc .............

I wish they'd go after those other ones too. But my point is, is the whole suspending Astana thing better or worse than the alternative? You wouldn't advocate looking the other way in the rare instances when you actually catch someone red-handed and you have the legal means to do something about it, would you?

Mexican drug cartels are very powerful, so we'd better let thieves do their thing?

 

[Alexandre B.]

Don't know why there is people cheering for Aru. The guy is obviously doping : his mentor is Olivano Locatelli.

As for Astana not leading the arms race, a quick reminder : http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/astana-timeline-eight-years-of-shadows

 

[scholar]

It got rid of Ben Johnson.

Net dopers without that suspension: x
Net dopers with that suspension: x-1

x-1 < x

Hence it was better than the alternative. No it didn't fix track and field athletics, but you can't expect any single step to do that. And no, the authorities didn't really follow up or try to clean up the sport, but that doesn't mean the suspension itself wrong.

This is the bit that most obviously doesn't follow. In the absence of attempts to clean up the sport, the suspension of a single athlete can all too easily paint a very dirty sport in a clean light. Without comprehensive attempts to clean up the sport, getting rid of Johnson gave a great many people (including my six-year-old self) the impression that he was a single bad apple in an otherwise uncontaminated barrel -- if this is better than the alternative, it's by no means self-evidently so.

If withdrawing Astana's license is part of an attempt seriously to clean up the sport I'll be pleased (if also rather surprised). If it's an attempt to single out one scapegoat while the rest continue to be dirtier than ever, it'll be a retrograde rather than helpful step, insofar as it gives the dirty teams a veneer of cleanness.

Between these two poles, there's the continuation of the Rasmussen/Ricco option: weeding out the most conspicuous dopers while the rest carry on as before. Whether you see this as generally positive or generally negative more or less depends on your outlook, but the one thing it clearly wouldn't be is an improvement (or, really, a change of any sort).

 

[Morbius]

Sure, I suppose, if this thread represented the sum total of reactions. However, many who are posting on this particular thread have already considered the possibility of this "news" in a greater context elsewhere--it is not reasonable to comment on these reactions without the background of proper context. Reactions you consider somehow "instinctive" may be consistent with previously expressed personal hierarchies. If you disagree, fine, but these reactions are not novel or new, and critiquing them in the absence of context is dishonest, or at least disingenuous. If you find a reaction inconsistent with what a poster has expressed elsewhere, feel free to point out the inconsistencies.

I do have to admit I am guilty of the same thing as you, in the sense that I have not researched your posts in other threads to determine if you are always a control freak. If so, then I am the hypocrite and you can ignore this and carry on with you being you--with my apologies.

I'm not attempting to control what people say, and I don't care if comments in this thread are any inconsistent with things expressed elsewhere. I've just said that people here are reacting to unexpected news in a distinctly non-positive way.

I expected that the Astana investigation would result in nothing at all - or at most a 'warning' about future behaviour. This news is way better than that. In the scheme of things it is a small step, but remember what Mao said about long journeys.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes but that doesn't mean their reactions can't be very telling.

In this particular case, however, I'm not sure what they're complaining about. I thought they might be referring to the anti-Sky bias, but now it seems it's just about people being too cynical for their tastes? Dunno.

Anyway, yes, this is good news overall and, if it goes forward, a limited victory against doping.

What the people are doing here is the same as one football fan telling the fan of an opposing team that they can't be sad if their team loses. "Wah you were happy when you guys won, now I demand that you are happy when we win, otherwise you are a hypocrite"

The same is happening here "you were happy when jtl got busted, now I demand you be happy when Astana lose their licence".

They have no right to make that demand. People are allowed to react to news however they want. Hypocrisy would be if someone argued that sky dope but Astana don't. Just like in football a hypocrite isn't someone who is happy when his team wins and sad when the other team wins, but someone who defends rules when they go in his favour and attacks them when they go the other way. But no one does argue that Astana are clean and sky aren't so in desperation some predictably overplay their hand and try to instruct others on where they are allowed to find pleasure.

And no surprise that this kind of logic failure and ridiculous thought policing attempts are coming from people who are quite consistently lacking in logic.

It's identical to pastronef cheering for froome while believing he is dirty. He is perfectly allowed to cheer for who he wants. It's the same with the Astana fans/ defenders here. They can cheer for who they want and as long as they don't go back on their arguments.

 

[scholar]

It's identical to pastronef cheering for froome while believing he is dirty. He is perfectly allowed to cheer for who he wants. It's the same with the Astana fans/ defenders here. They can cheer for who they want and as long as they don't go back on their arguments.

Exactly. The problem would be if someone cheered for Froome (or anyone else) while believing he is dirty, while criticizing other riders for being dirty.

 

[Morbius]

The same is happening here "you were happy when jtl got busted, now I demand you be happy when Astana lose their licence".
They have no right to make that demand.

I havent's seen anyone in this thread demand anything. A few raised eyebrows perhaps.

 

[skippythepinhead]

I'm not attempting to control what people say, and I don't care if comments in this thread are any inconsistent with things expressed elsewhere. I've just said that people here are reacting to unexpected news in a distinctly non-positive way.

I expected that the Astana investigation would result in nothing at all - or at most a 'warning' about future behaviour. This news is way better than that. In the scheme of things it is a small step, but remember what Mao said about long journeys.

If I am reading correctly, today's news re: Astana defied your expectations.

The news itself does not defy my expectations, nor does it disappoint me.

It raises some concerns for me. Should I just cheer in this thread and express concern elsewhere?

Yay

 

[hrotha]

Hitch, no one is demanding anything. It's not "you were happy that JTL was busted, but as an Astana fan you're not happy when Astana is suspended", it's "you were happy that JTL was busted, you claim to be antidoping, yet you're not happy that Astana is suspended".

No one can tell anyone else to feel a particular way, but that some people feel a particular way is very telling and, in some select cases, does betray a pretty ridiculous bias. And it's perfectly fine to call those people out.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Exactly. The problem would be if someone cheered for Froome (or anyone else) while believing he is dirty, while criticizing other riders for being dirty.

Maybe a subtle distinction, but no, the problem isn't cheering for anyone while believing they are dirty. I "cheered" for Andy Schleck to beat AC on the road despite my assumption both were dirty dirty cheaters. I would want Schleck to get popped as much as AC, however, and would expect UCI not to treat any rider different from another based on popularity, team, skin color, or any other factor.

One can "cheer" for a dirty cyclist. When one's cheers cause one to defend their favored cyclist in the clinic as somehow "better" than those other "dirty dopers," then we have the cognitive dissonances you describe that others have called "fanboy"

Cheers themselves are not hypocrisy. Allowing favoritism to blind you to cheating is.

 

[Kretch]

From a purely doping perspective this action significantly adjusts the risk-reward profile for a wide range of people and thus is a positive anti-doping step. The key is whether the UCI acts in a similar positive manner going forward. A good test will be Zorzoli.

 

[scholar]

Maybe a subtle distinction, but no, the problem isn't cheering for anyone while believing they are dirty.

I think we're agreeing here (and that I might not have been entirely clear): this only becomes hypocritical when it's combined with critizing other riders for being dirty.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So nothing changes.



I want change. This dont change a thing.



Cookson could've made changes that effected real change in the sport. Going after a team from a region like Kazakhstan is really not going to change anything. Why is he not pursuing Lampre's licence? Why does Riis get off the hook?

All fluff for Cookson's superiors at IOC.

So what shall Cookson do? Throw all teams out of cycling?

Or isnt it the better way now, by showing other teams "not only Astana was drinking in the last chance saloon, you all are, and we have the will to throw any of you out when having enough legal evidence".

 

[Netserk]

Hitch, no one is demanding anything. It's not "you were happy that JTL was busted, but as an Astana fan you're not happy when Astana is suspended", it's "you were happy that JTL was busted, you claim to be antidoping, yet you're not happy that Astana is suspended".

No one can tell anyone else to feel a particular way, but that some people feel a particular way is very telling and, in some select cases, does betray a pretty ridiculous bias. And it's perfectly fine to call those people out.

But you can be anti-doping and fan of a doper too. At least that's how I consider myself. Would I be sad if Boonen tested positive tomorrow? Hell yes. Especially if I saw him as a scapegoat, where everyone else continued on. Of course I would also be able to acknowledge that it is a step forward for anti-doping, but while that may cheer me up, isn't it understandable to have sincere conflicting emotions? Between Puerto and the Armstrong comeback when ASO was led by Clerc, it was much easier to be happy about the different riders getting caught (like Vino) as you could see the state of cycling as a whole improved, but at other times when things overall worsened and just a few once in a while was used as scapegoats, I don't think it's hypocritical to be anti-doping and not happy about that.

If this is part of things getting better, jubii! On the other hand if this is a move to just get Vino (and perhaps a few other dinosaurs) out while the overall state of cycling continue in the same direction it has gone the last few years, then I won't be happy about this.

 

[hrotha]

Of course you can be antidoping and a fan of a doper, Netserk (look at my avayar! ), but who here is an actual Astana fan? I can only think of two people, and they're both basically a caricature. No, I don't think anyone here has mixed feelings or feels bummed out simply because a team they support got done in. I sincerely believe what we're seeing, in many cases, is people who are selective in how they approach doping.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Hitch, no one is demanding anything. It's not "you were happy that JTL was busted, but as an Astana fan you're not happy when Astana is suspended", it's "you were happy that JTL was busted, you claim to be antidoping, yet you're not happy that Astana is suspended".

No one can tell anyone else to feel a particular way, but that some people feel a particular way is very telling and, in some select cases, does betray a pretty ridiculous bias. And it's perfectly fine to call those people out.

This x 100, solid post. The agenda here comes out when things like this happen, like when Kittel called out Sayer and Sayer subsequently got popped, Kittel got accused by several posters of racism ffs. Now Astana is going down, its part of some Northern European alliance chucking those teams/riders from the East or the South under the bus, when it seems Astana thoroughly deserve everything they are getting.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Reposting: Martial Saugy is a very senior member of the ISSUL, so for whatever reason the UCI wants Astana gone, ISSUL will deliver. Saugy must be how ISSUL, a pure sport science research organization got the job of doing something not at all related to their organization's mission.

Jimmy, please post some more about "the agenda" in this subforum.

I still want to know what Astana has done to deserve this treatment. And no, I don't mean the low-level positives.

 

[Netserk]

Of course you can be antidoping and a fan of a doper, Netserk (look at my avayar! ), but who here is an actual Astana fan? I can only think of two people, and they're both basically a caricature. No, I don't think anyone here has mixed feelings or feels bummed out simply because a team they support got done in. I sincerely believe what we're seeing, in many cases, is people who are selective in how they approach doping.

Of course I recognize the double-standards group/individuals you refer to, but while I'm not an Astana fanboy (neutral or about 6 on a 0-10 scale), I am a fan of Vino, so if this ends up with only Vino the-bad-apple getting removed and everything else continues as usual, then I will be a little sad (not full blown sad as Vino probably had it coming, but he isn't the only one at that, I might add).

 

[Hugh Januss]

Astana or any team deserves this after as many positive tests and connections to investigations as they have had. Other teams have the same connections but nobody else has the sheer numbers of positives. The question is, is that because they are the only ones doping or because the UCI is focusing on them.

 

[Netserk]

This x 100, solid post. The agenda here comes out when things like this happen, like when Kittel called out Sayer and Sayer subsequently got popped, Kittel got accused by several posters of racism ffs. Now Astana is going down, its part of some Northern European alliance chucking those teams/riders from the East or the South under the bus, when it seems Astana thoroughly deserve everything they are getting.

10 chars:

No one ever said Kittel was probably wrong about Sayar. People questioned whether he'd have done the same with someone who wasn't such an easy target (small Turkish guy from a continental team, can speak out against him with no consequences and get easy cleanliness cred).

 

[scholar]

Astana or any team deserves this after as many positive tests and connections to investigations as they have had. Other teams have the same connections but nobody else has the sheer numbers of positives. The question is, is that because they are the only ones doping or because the UCI is focusing on them.

Or because they're doping to a greater extent (or in a wider variety of ways) than the others, or that they're less effective at hiding their doping.

Or possibly something else that I've not thought of.

 

[skippythepinhead]

So what shall Cookson do? Throw all teams out of cycling?

Or isnt it the better way now, by showing other teams "not only Astana was drinking in the last chance saloon, you all are, and we have the will to throw any of you out when having enough legal evidence".

OK, if that's your metaphor, it is all better now, unless your sheriff is this one (or worse):

 

[Hugh Januss]

Or because they're doping to a greater extent (or in a wider variety of ways) than the others, or that they're less effective at hiding their doping.

Or possibly something else that I've not thought of.

Or because they don't have the proper help in hiding it?