Contador 2010

[hfer07]

Vino has no chance to make podium. The Glorious Nation's best hopes lie with Alberto Contador. My guess is that if they can, they will make a serious effort to retain his services in 2011 and beyond.

If everything goes fine this year, I don't see why he wouldn't stay with Astana-and specially looking at the current situation of many sponsors pulling out such as Caisse d'espagne which was likely to be his team next year-and I'm sure he might not be interested in Quickstep at all-perhaps the "only" option would be Garmin...IF he finds the necessity to do so

 

[Polish]

Vino has no chance to make podium. The Glorious Nation's best hopes lie with Alberto Contador. My guess is that if they can, they will make a serious effort to retain his services in 2011 and beyond.

I seriously agree with you about Alberto staying with Astana.
He has a track record of being loyal to his team mates.
After Disco folded, Alberto had choices - but he decided to stay with his mates when they went to Astana. He made some comments back then about being loyal to his mates iirc.

And if he wins the TdF with Astana, it makes sense to stay there instead of Quick Step I would think.

ps...I like to make the Vino comments just to needle the fanboys

 

[Carboncrank]

Tortious interference with a contract. And the appropriate remedy would be an initial TRO followed by a permanent injunction. And before you ask: yes.

Then as a lawyer, you know that's complete hogwash.

All sides in this had plenty of lawyers.

Radio Shack is a American company. You want to sue them, get a lawyer and show up in court. I doesn't matter if your from Antarctica. There was no need for all this to have happened "entirely" in the US especially since what you are talking about is tort law which is common law.
Johann getting out of his contract with Astana was a piece of cake since the sponsors spent much of 2009 in breach of his contract.

All the physical "assets" of the team belonged to him.

Astana had a bunch of riders under contract for 2010 and beyond, including Contador. Why do you think they couldn't enforce those contracts?

Because they were breached.

So, to keep from being sued for damages, they let people go.

 

[Publicus]

Then as a lawyer, you know that's complete hogwash.

All sides in this had plenty of lawyers.

Radio Shack is a American company. You want to sue them, get a lawyer and show up in court. I doesn't matter if your from Antarctica. There was no need for all this to have happened "entirely" in the US especially since what you are talking about is tort law which is common law.
Johann getting out of his contract with Astana was a piece of cake since the sponsors spent much of 2009 in breach of his contract.

All the physical "assets" of the team belonged to him.

Astana had a bunch of riders under contract for 2010 and beyond, including Contador. Why do you think they couldn't enforce those contracts?

Because they were breached.

So, to keep from being sued for damages, they let people go.

The original comment was that if this happened in America there would be a lawsuit, and believe you challenged the forum participant to identify upon which basis. I have not spoken to the merits of any such action, but merely identified but one of the basis upon which such a lawsuit could be based. To the extent that you find that such a lawsuit would ultimately fail to be meritorious is irrelevant to the original question posed herein.

To the extent you are interested in discussing the merits of such a case, I'd be happy to indulge such an adventure at a more appropriate time. At present I have a pressing engagement that does not allow me the time it would take to educate you on the finer points of American contract law, which from a cursory examination of your above post, is not one of your strong suits.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The original comment was that if this happened in America there would be a lawsuit, and believe you challenged the forum participant to identify upon which basis. I have not spoken to the merits of any such action, but merely identified but one of the basis upon which such a lawsuit could be based. To the extent that you find that such a lawsuit would ultimately fail to be meritorious is irrelevant to the original question posed herein.

To the extent you are interested in discussing the merits of such a case, I'd be happy to indulge such an adventure at a more appropriate time. At present I have a pressing engagement that does not allow me the time it would take to educate you on the finer points of American contract law, which from a cursory examination of your above post, is not one of your strong suits.

Why waste your time??? He probably couldn't understand half of your post due to his lack of intelligence!

 

[Publicus]

Why waste your time??? He probably couldn't understand half of your post due to his lack of intelligence!

I've figured Carbon Crank out.

 

[Carboncrank]

Saxo Bank and BMC hold the best cards on the cobbles.
Vino will pilot AC through the difficult parts just fine. The ****ers who keep yapping about Vino being a bad teammate are just that. ****ers.

The people who don't like Vino evidently have a better memory than you.

He blood doped despite being in a situation where he was certain to be targeted by the testers. B sample positive. Blood transfusions had been detectable for a long time.

"There is the presence of a double population of haematids, which implies there has been a blood transfusion with homological blood,"

It was any easy catch.

Even after the B sample Vinokourov insisted he had "always raced clean" and will fight the blood-doping charges. "I have been tested at least 100 times during my career. These test results simply make no sense. Given all the attention paid to doping offences, you would have to be crazy to do what I have been accused of, and I am not crazy."

12-07 ""I don't want this sport any more. I'm slamming the door and I'm leaving. I will prove I'm not guilty," he said."

"It's a mistake. I have never doped, that's not the way I see my profession."

Don't forget that not only did his insult to the Tour get the entire team kicked out with 2 other riders in the top ten, including Kloden, it kept the reconstituted Astana, with Alberto, out of the next tour.

He is now and always has been an egomanic. Just how dirty he was is being proved by his admission he no longer has any chance of winning, and will be further proved by him being of little help to AC.

Alberto better hope to hell I'm wrong about Vino, he has precious little help otherwise. It will take more than Oscar.

 

[Carboncrank]

The original comment was that if this happened in America there would be a lawsuit, and believe you challenged the forum participant to identify upon which basis. I have not spoken to the merits of any such action, but merely identified but one of the basis upon which such a lawsuit could be based. To the extent that you find that such a lawsuit would ultimately fail to be meritorious is irrelevant to the original question posed herein.

No, the original comment was " you would have seen a lawsuit being slapped on RS". It does not ask, or state, on what basis.

I merely said he didn't know what he was talking about.

If Astana wanted to file such a suit, they could. "occurred entirely within the US" is what is irrelevant. They didn't because their lawyers, most likely competent well finacned lawyers, knew better.

Sounds to me like you're pretty much admitting such a suit would have be malarkey.

To the extent you are interested in discussing the merits of such a case, I'd be happy to indulge such an adventure at a more appropriate time. At present I have a pressing engagement that does not allow me the time it would take to educate you on the finer points of American contract law, which from a cursory examination of your above post, is not one of your strong suits.

Actually, if you are serious, I'd be interested on your take as to why Astana didn't attempt to enforce contracts that obviously existed with Johann, the riders and others.

I've already stated that I think it's because they were already in breach of those contracts.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

VP of the Kazakh cycling federation Nikolai Proskurin and sponsor Samruk-Kazyna would not mind seeing Vino make the podium.

Thanks for that brilliant piece of analysis.

 

[Publicus]

No, the original comment was " you would have seen a lawsuit being slapped on RS". It does not ask, or state, on what basis.

I merely said he didn't know what he was talking about.

If Astana wanted to file such a suit, they could. "occurred entirely within the US" is what is irrelevant. They didn't because their lawyers, most likely competent well finacned lawyers, knew better.

Sounds to me like you're pretty much admitting such a suit would have be malarkey.



Actually, if you are serious, I'd be interested on your take as to why Astana didn't attempt to enforce contracts that obviously existed with Johann, the riders and others.

I've already stated that I think it's because they were already in breach of those contracts.

You a lawyer moosey guy?

You don't know what you are talking about.

Prove me wrong.

Astana could have filed a suit in the United States but it would have been ill-advised. First, no one, to my knowledge, has alleged any wrong doing by any Radio Shack employees (Bruyneel was not under contract with Radio Shack during the TdF). Second, none of the alleged actions occurred in the United States or any of its protectorates. As such no US court would have jurisdiction over the matter. Stated more simply, Radio Shack's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted would have been granted without much thought by the court.

There certainly could have been a suit filed against Bruyneel and Olympus Sarl for interference with a contract and breach of contract. Olympus Sarl had an obligation to perform with KCF. To the extent that OS and Bruyneel were using their energies, efforts and resources for the benefit of Team Radio Shack, and implicitly, to the detriment of Astana/KCF, there is a slam dunk case. Armstrong, not being in contractual privity with KCF or OS/Bruyneel, is largely exempted from the contractual claims--but one could argue for tortious interference on his part as well (to the extent there is sufficient evidence to support such an action (i.e., that he was approaching riders during the Tour, etc.).

Why Astana did not (and when I say Astana, I mean KCF) is (and this is all conjecture on my part since I don't know the definitive facts of the behind the seen discussions) that the release of certain riders was part of a negotiated settlement between Bruyneel/Olympus Sarl and the KCF. I'm not going to offer an opinion who got the better of the deal, because I've yet to see the new Astana team in action in a race that mattered, but on paper it seems that Bruyneel and Olympus Sarl got the better part of the transaction. On paper.

As to your allegation that there was a breach of contract, I presume you are alluding to the lack of payments. That would only form the basis for a breach of contract claim to the extent such breach was not cured. My understanding is that KCF cured those claims prior to the TdF. To the extent the cyclist continued to perform under their contracts (and Astana continued to perform thereafter), there would be no basis upon which a cyclist could maintain a breach of contract action.

 

[Anonymous]

Photos of Contador's Specialized Shiv

http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...tador’s-specialized-shiv-time-trial-bike_6852

I imagine he'll ride the existing Shiv at the Tour this year. During the Astana training camp in Pisa, Contador and his wrench, Faustino Munoz, gave a lot of good ideas to the Specialized technicians who were there. It was "hinted" that those suggestions, plus feedback from Saxo Bank, might be used to make a new road bike for the Tour de France.

 

[Polish]

Thanks for that brilliant piece of analysis.

"Brilliant" may be a bit much, but thank you anyway Moose

You know, it DOES take a tactical genius like Bruyneel to get multiple riders onto the podium at the TdF. It is a very delicate balance...you do not want a situation where you are throwing a cat amongst the pigeons. Alberto & Levi on the 2007 podium was different scenario from the Alberto & Lance 2009 podium.

Will Nikolai Proskurin and sponsor Samruk-Kazyna have the tactical finesse to place both Vino and Alberto on the podium?

Vino has mentioned he would be content just going for a stage win at the TdF.
But is going for a personal stage victory really consistent with giving your all to support your team leader?

 

[Polish]

Photos of Contador's Specialized Shiv

http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...tador’s-specialized-shiv-time-trial-bike_6852

I imagine he'll ride the existing Shiv at the Tour this year. During the Astana training camp in Pisa, Contador and his wrench, Faustino Munoz, gave a lot of good ideas to the Specialized technicians who were there. It was "hinted" that those suggestions, plus feedback from Saxo Bank, might be used to make a new road bike for the Tour de France.

The wheels look heavy compared to what RadioShack is riding.

 

[Publicus]

The wheels look heavy compared to what RadioShack is riding.

Looks can be deceiving, that's why you weigh them to make sure!

 

[Carboncrank]

suit filed against Bruyneel and Olympus Sarl for interference with a contract and breach of contract. Olympus Sarl had an obligation to perform with KCF. To the extent that OS and Bruyneel were using their energies, efforts and resources for the benefit of Team Radio Shack, and implicitly, to the detriment of Astana/KCF, there is a slam dunk case. Armstrong, not being in contractual privity with KCF or OS/Bruyneel, is largely exempted from the contractual claims--but one could argue for tortious interference on his part as well (to the extent there is sufficient evidence to support such an action (i.e., that he was approaching riders during the Tour, etc.).

Good luck getting "approaching riders" seen as tortious. Kidnapped? Sabotaged? Drugged? yes..
I appreciate you making the effort here.
As for you opinion of it being a slam dunk, I think you're are taking the payments issue to way to lightly. Everything stems from that.

Here's a bit from May 09; "the riders have only received two months of salary in 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana_(cycling_team)#Financial_crisis

Even though people eventually got paid I'd think timeliness would be a legal issued. Would it not? If KCF had not paid up Olympus SARL would not have had the money to go. This was a ridiculously complicated arrangement the more I read about it.

More than one source I find says that the rider contracts, are all with Olympus SARL, not KCF, which seems to answer my question about riders getting out of contracts.

http://www.kadisco.com/2009/05/team-will-be-better-off-financially-without-astana/

According to an article penned by our own Susan Westemeyer, Oscar Pereiro's contract to rider for Astana is actually still with Olympus SARL. What the heck is that about? Who is Alberto's contract with?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/second-edition-cycling-news-wednesday-december-2-2009

Then there's the article of July 3rd 2009 ; "The Kazakh Cycling Federation has announced plans to restructure Team Astana, removing Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong, and starting over with Kazakh and Spanish riders, based around Alberto Contador and Alexandre Vinokourov.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kazakh-coup-to-oust-armstrong-and-bruyneel-from-team-astana

I'd think that be an issue, don't you?

Johann went to Astana after Disovery left and offered to bring what he brings to the table, Tour de France wins. He knew who he was getting in bed with and got terms from the beginning that were favorable to him if things should go wrong. He's been around the business end of this for a long time and has seen teams come and go and knew better than to get left holding the bag. He owned the stuff, looks like he owned the contracts, all KCF need to do was collect money from the sponsors and pay it to Olumpus SARL. How was he to blame when they wouldn't eve do that?

As to your allegation that there was a breach of contract, I presume you are alluding to the lack of payments. That would only form the basis for a breach of contract claim to the extent such breach was not cured. My understanding is that KCF cured those claims prior to the TdF. To the extent the cyclist continued to perform under their contracts (and Astana continued to perform thereafter), there would be no basis upon which a cyclist could maintain a breach of contract action.

Would not payment be an issue if KCF was the party claiming breach?

 

[Publicus]

Good luck getting "approaching riders" seen as tortious. Kidnapped? Sabotaged? Drugged? yes..
I appreciate you making the effort here.
As for you opinion of it being a slam dunk, I think you're are taking the payments issue to way to lightly. Everything stems from that.

Here's a bit from May 09; "the riders have only received two months of salary in 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana_(cycling_team)#Financial_crisis

Even though people eventually got paid I'd think timeliness would be a legal issued. Would it not? If KCF had not paid up Olympus SARL would not have had the money to go. This was a ridiculously complicated arrangement the more I read about it.

More than one source I find says that the rider contracts, are all with Olympus SARL, not KCF, which seems to answer my question about riders getting out of contracts.

http://www.kadisco.com/2009/05/team-will-be-better-off-financially-without-astana/

According to an article penned by our own Susan Westemeyer, Oscar Pereiro's contract to rider for Astana is actually still with Olympus SARL. What the heck is that about? Who is Alberto's contract with?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/second-edition-cycling-news-wednesday-december-2-2009

Then there's the article of July 3rd 2009 ; "The Kazakh Cycling Federation has announced plans to restructure Team Astana, removing Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong, and starting over with Kazakh and Spanish riders, based around Alberto Contador and Alexandre Vinokourov.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kazakh-coup-to-oust-armstrong-and-bruyneel-from-team-astana

I'd think that be an issue, don't you?

Johann went to Astana after Disovery left and offered to bring what he brings to the table, Tour de France wins. He knew who he was getting in bed with and got terms from the beginning that were favorable to him if things should go wrong. He's been around the business end of this for a long time and has seen teams come and go and knew better than to get left holding the bag. He owned the stuff, looks like he owned the contracts, all KCF need to do was collect money from the sponsors and pay it to Olumpus SARL. How was he to blame when they wouldn't eve do that?



Would not payment be an issue if KCF was the party claiming breach?

1. Tortious here does refer to torture. It refers to the legal term "tort." A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. Given that Bruyneel/Olympus Sarl actions were indirectly on behalf and for the benefit of Team Radio Shack, you could not maintain the action solely on the contract. As I noted, however, the KCF would have a breach of contract claim against both for those actions (stronger than the tort claim).

2. Even though you believe that timeliness is an issue, the reality here is that if the breach was cured (and any ancillary damages addressed) there is no recourse against the KCF. No harm, nothing to remedy.

3. My understanding, and I'll dig up the link later, is that the contracts with the riders were between Olympus Sarl, KCF and the rider.

4. Olympus Sarl is JB's company and I believe that information was in fact in error. My belief is predicated on the notion that JB/Olympus Sarl owned the buses, cars and other equipment (hence the radio issue at TDU; and the borrowed cars at the first training camp in Pisa), so I doubt that Olympus Sarl would be involved in contracts for the upcoming season. Without seeing the contract there is no way to verify the information contained that article.

5. As noted above, there isn't sufficient factual basis to draw all of the inferences contained in your final paragraph. If KCF was in violation of the terms of its contract with Olympus Sarl and had failed to cure such default within the timeframe specified in the contract (a material breach), then Olympus Sarl and JB would have only had to file suit claiming breach of contract. To my knowledge, that never occurred. There was hanging wringing, there was cajoling, but ultimately the delayed payment's were not sufficient late to trigger a breach of contract.

In summation, you've ventured into an area for which you are ill equipped to offer an educated and reasoned opinion. Your opinion of what should or should not happen are largely irrelevant within the confines of the law. Facts and the letter/spirit of the law (including the common law) are what govern the appropriate outcomes when resolving matters in the legal arena.

EDIT: Didn't address your concern about the lack of payments if KCF was claiming breach of contract. First, as a practical matter, the lack of payments would only be an issue to the extent they had not be cured at the time KCF filed suit. If that were the case, JB/Olympus Sarl would have an affirmative defense of unclean hands (i.e., that KCF's breach precipitated their subsequent actions and as such KCF cannot claim harm). Second, as I understand the change of events, KCF had cured the missed payments before the TdF and thus would not be relevant to any proceeding to enforce its rights under it's contract with Olympus Sarl, or to protect it's interest with respect to the rider contracts. Third, to the extent Olympus Sarl were to raise that issue at trial, KCF could argue that laches applied (that OS/JB had effectively waive their claims by failing to pursue them earlier (which is why I mentioned the fact that the riders and OS/JB continued to perform under the contract when the purportedly were not paid)).

 

[flicker]

That is one ugly bike!!! Reminds me of the turkeys who think its OK to ride TT or Tri bikes in a peloton of road bikes. Scandalous and dangerous.

 

[Publicus]

Back to the actual sport of cycling. Here's a link to a recent interview AC gave to El Pais, it's been translated:

http://www.albertocontadornotebook.info/

A couple of choice quotes:

The experts doubt the potential of your new team.

But unlike them, I’m surprised in a positive way by the team. We did tough training sessions and everybody responded. The Kazakh riders, in particular, are the ones that surprised me most - the excitement, the motivation that they have for riding with Astana.

Tactically, aside from strife while in close quarters, aren’t you going to miss Armstrong?

Maybe so, having Armstrong on the team gave us more strength, we controlled things better. But now I’ll have the freedom to do my race. If that means doing an ascent really fast, I’ll be able to do it.

Are you afraid that from here to the Tour you might be worn down in a psychological battle with Armstrong?

As far as I’m concerned, I’m not going to do anything to make war, and I don’t know what Lance is going to do.

The Texan seems to like to push your buttons…

But I’m not going to push his buttons back if he does.

Nevertheless, all the myths in sports have also been unique personalities.

But you can be a myth and be a quiet person, an ordinary man. Look at Induráin, the whole world admires him, everything that he’s won, and he lives a very quiet life.

Is it about being like Induráin, then?

No, it’s about being yourself.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Back to the actual sport of cycling. Here's a link to a recent interview AC gave to El Pais, it's been translated:

http://www.albertocontadornotebook.info/

A couple of choice quotes:

Conti definetly has his head screwed on!

 

[53 x 11]

1. Tortious here does refer to torture.

Ha ha...... The arsehat really thought it did!

 

[Anonymous]

Photos of Contador's Specialized Shiv

http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...tador’s-specialized-shiv-time-trial-bike_6852

I imagine he'll ride the existing Shiv at the Tour this year. During the Astana training camp in Pisa, Contador and his wrench, Faustino Munoz, gave a lot of good ideas to the Specialized technicians who were there. It was "hinted" that those suggestions, plus feedback from Saxo Bank, might be used to make a new road bike for the Tour de France.

Dunno what everyone else thinks, but that "nose-cone" of the Specialized TT bikes looks, well, ridiculously ugly...

Never been a fan of fully aero nose-cones like that, but thats just me

It seems like the kind of thing the UCI would look to ban actually

But hey, it certainly looks aerodynamic enough, Conti should benefit from that on the flat 51km TT at le Tour.

 

[thehog]

Sweet: http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...tador’s-specialized-shiv-time-trial-bike_6852

 

[taiwan]

Photos of Contador's Specialized Shiv

http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...tador’s-specialized-shiv-time-trial-bike_6852

Sweet: http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...tador’s-specialized-shiv-time-trial-bike_6852

Although I think UCI regulations are a bit arbitary, I wouldn't have thought they'd allow nose cones like on the Shiv either. Maybe wrong forum, sorry.

 

[Carboncrank]

1. Tortious here does refer to torture. It refers to the legal term "tort." A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. Given that Bruyneel/Olympus Sarl actions were indirectly on behalf and for the benefit of Team Radio Shack, you could not maintain the action solely on the contract. As I noted, however, the KCF would have a breach of contract claim against both for those actions (stronger than the tort claim).

2. Even though you believe that timeliness is an issue, the reality here is that if the breach was cured (and any ancillary damages addressed) there is no recourse against the KCF. No harm, nothing to remedy.

3. My understanding, and I'll dig up the link later, is that the contracts with the riders were between Olympus Sarl, KCF and the rider.

4. Olympus Sarl is JB's company and I believe that information was in fact in error. My belief is predicated on the notion that JB/Olympus Sarl owned the buses, cars and other equipment (hence the radio issue at TDU; and the borrowed cars at the first training camp in Pisa), so I doubt that Olympus Sarl would be involved in contracts for the upcoming season. Without seeing the contract there is no way to verify the information contained that article.

5. As noted above, there isn't sufficient factual basis to draw all of the inferences contained in your final paragraph. If KCF was in violation of the terms of its contract with Olympus Sarl and had failed to cure such default within the timeframe specified in the contract (a material breach), then Olympus Sarl and JB would have only had to file suit claiming breach of contract. To my knowledge, that never occurred. There was hanging wringing, there was cajoling, but ultimately the delayed payment's were not sufficient late to trigger a breach of contract.

In summation, you've ventured into an area for which you are ill equipped to offer an educated and reasoned opinion. Your opinion of what should or should not happen are largely irrelevant within the confines of the law. Facts and the letter/spirit of the law (including the common law) are what govern the appropriate outcomes when resolving matters in the legal arena.

EDIT: Didn't address your concern about the lack of payments if KCF was claiming breach of contract. First, as a practical matter, the lack of payments would only be an issue to the extent they had not be cured at the time KCF filed suit. If that were the case, JB/Olympus Sarl would have an affirmative defense of unclean hands (i.e., that KCF's breach precipitated their subsequent actions and as such KCF cannot claim harm). Second, as I understand the change of events, KCF had cured the missed payments before the TdF and thus would not be relevant to any proceeding to enforce its rights under it's contract with Olympus Sarl, or to protect it's interest with respect to the rider contracts. Third, to the extent Olympus Sarl were to raise that issue at trial, KCF could argue that laches applied (that OS/JB had effectively waive their claims by failing to pursue them earlier (which is why I mentioned the fact that the riders and OS/JB continued to perform under the contract when the purportedly were not paid)).

I'm not trying to claim that a couple of hours of reading Wikipedia and other net sources make me capable of making a real legal argument with an actual practicing attorney and I really do appreciate your time on this.

So, I'll just argue my opinion as a layman.

Again, I figure both sides had proper legal representation and the fact that no suits were filed has nothing to do with the fact that they couldn't use US courts. I figure Johann knew he could part ways with KCF because a) he was being told he had defenses from any suit from KCF and/or b) he was being told he had cause to file suites of his own. So an agreement is reached by both sides not to engage in a legal battle. It would seem to me that it's KCF that was in the weak position as Johann is the one that appears to be breaching his contracts by walking away. Why not sue? Astana was losing everything, the equipment, all but one good rider. They've had to start over from scratch. They certainly didn't not sue because their just a bunch of nice guys. If it wasn't the non payment issue there was something else. It's like Johann knew where the bodies were buried. There's a story here that nobody has written unless I missed it.

Can anybody out there figure out the rider contract issue with Olympus SARL? Both regarding riders leaving Astana and that seemingly bizarre story of Dec 2nd saying Oscar's contract to ride for Astana is with Olympus SARL?
That seems to be saying that KCF is still just taking sponsors money and paying it to Johann's company, to pay Oscar. What about the other riders including Alberto. (I've also been trying to find out if Alberto's contract is for more than just this year)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pereiros-contract-with-astana-in-doubt

 

[Carboncrank]

Back to the actual sport of cycling. Here's a link to a recent interview AC gave to El Pais, it's been translated:

http://www.albertocontadornotebook.info/

A couple of choice quotes:

[Tactically, aside from strife while in close quarters, aren’t you going to miss Armstrong?

Maybe so, having Armstrong on the team gave us more strength, we controlled things better.

Contrary to popular opinion, this doesn't sound like someone who feels like he was conspired against.

Maybe it's because they were, and it was clear to all the internet cranks here that they were, and he just didn't notice.