End of Saxo-Bank?

[WindLessBreeze]

montani^semper

King Alberto will come back for the Vuelta, just in time to Kick some AZZZZZZZZZ. Then The Worlds TT and RR. It wasn't EPO, HGH, 'roids, efedrine,............It was just plain envy. Now I honestly feel that McQuaid's ternure is a dismal one. Hope the New League lives after all

 

[BYOP88]

Can't wait till the team goes down, dirtiest of the dirtiest people in cycling hopefully gone from the scene, sorry Bjarne.

Is that just the current roster or are you talking about all time roster?

Also what would the UCI do, if another team had a high point scoring rider banned, if Saxo get thrown out then all other teams in future would've to be thrown out too.

 

[Parrulo]

Can't wait till the team goes down, dirtiest of the dirtiest people in cycling hopefully gone from the scene, sorry Bjarne.

is saxo any dirtier then "rabo we have got our best results with denis menchov and michael rasmussen bank"

thought so . . . .

 

[Havetts]

is saxo any dirtier then "rabo we have got our best results with denis menchov and michael rasmussen bank"

thought so . . . .

Not sure.. Might sure as hell be, but surely those have been dealt with and/or have left the team, Bjarne is still sitting in his seat.

Just had a discussion with Kazi, maybe its unfair I've singled Bjarne out that much when theres alot more wrong, I admit it wasn't classy but I've had my moment of meltdown today, I suppose..

Still a wonder I've not been banned/contacted (yet)

 

[El Pistolero]

is saxo any dirtier then "rabo we have got our best results with denis menchov and michael rasmussen bank"

thought so . . . .

You forgot Tirreno-Adriatico and Romandie with Dekker.

 

[El Pistolero]

Not sure.. Might sure as hell be, but surely those have been dealt with and/or have left the team, Bjarne is still sitting in his seat.

Just had a discussion with Kazi, maybe its unfair I've singled Bjarne out that much when theres alot more wrong, I admit it wasn't classy but I've had my moment of meltdown today, I suppose..

Still a wonder I've not been banned/contacted (yet)

You didn't say anything that's ban worthy yet, you were just being annoying. They don't ban you for that, I guarantee you

 

[palmerq]

can everyone remember this is not the clinic section of the forum, just incase it goes down that road, so please keep clean and about cycling here.

 

[Mellow Velo]

One can argue that keeping the WT status based on points from a rider known to have commited an anti-doping violation (deliberately or not) is also appaling.

How so?
Saxo already had Contador on the books by the time the UCI informed the rider of his infraction.

It's a good incentive for the teams to dope up their riders knowing that they won't be in any immediate danger of losing the WT status.

Seems to have worked OK for Astana, in this case.
Top penny for a rider who 3 weeks later is worthless and all associated blame shifts with him, to boot.

 

[Publicus]

It was Contador that had clen in his system, not the UCI... they did not do anything wrong... i still hate them, but it is not their fault.

In his system as a result of a contaminated supplement. Make sure you state that correctly every time. He's guilty of taking a supplement that apparently CAS believes was contaminated. Not intentionally ingested as PED or to cheat, but was unfortunate to ingest a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor no less to insure no contamination. For that he loses his TdF, Giro and 11 other victories. And the other riders for Saxo Bank stand to lose a whole lot more. For a contaminated supplement.

 

[Kazistuta]

I think the UCI "reconsideration" is just a symbolic gesture. They won't gain anything as organisation to retract the WT license, and which team should be awarded with the left-over license? The WT terms (bank guarantee etc.) needs to be sorted etc. - all in all I can't see a reason why they should do it (Besides the fact that without Contadors points they would never have been awarded one in first place - and that argument is moot)?

 

[palmerq]

I moved it to the clinic maybe not a great idea but it has elements of doping in it, so I think here you can now talk about all aspects of this without the mods moaning about how it isnt the clinic :S

 

[roundabout]

How so?
Saxo already had Contador on the books by the time the UCI informed the rider of his infraction.




Seems to have worked OK for Astana, in this case.
Top penny for a rider who 3 weeks later is worthless and all associated blame shifts with him, to boot.

So if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that a team should lose the points from a rider only when that positive occurs on that same team. Is that right?

 

[FreeWheelin]

In his system as a result of a contaminated supplement. Make sure you state that correctly every time. He's guilty of taking a supplement that apparently CAS believes was contaminated. Not intentionally ingested as PED or to cheat, but was unfortunate to ingest a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor no less to insure no contamination. For that he loses his TdF, Giro and 11 other victories. And the other riders for Saxo Bank stand to lose a whole lot more. For a contaminated supplement.

It still does not make it the UCI's fault. I dont like it anymore than anyone else, but he tested positive and could not prove how it got into his system with a plausible explanation. Therefore he is banned and all that goes with that.

 

[craig1985]

Man, good thing he is not riding for Katusha, I think he would have to cough up around € 25 Mio, that's gotta hurt even Albert

On top of the fine and his legal bills as well! He would have to declare bankruptcy quicker than Andy gets dropped on a hill in a warm-up race.

 

[Publicus]

I think AC takes the UCI to court over these provisions since it adversely affects his ability to earn a living, especially since he's only guilty of having the misfortune of ingesting a contaminated supplement. I think the two year penalty is already harsh under the circumstances, effectively extending the ban for two additional years is, arguably, unconscionable. /end legal rant

 

[craig1985]

I would be very wary of putting all my financial eggs in the same basket if i depended on a cycling team to pay my mortgage as everyone on the team knows what is what and how things work.

Easy to say on a virtual forum i know, but i would think twice about joining a team if i needed to earn a living because the rug can be pulled from under you. Pro cycling is infamous for treating people like ****.

Riis (all teams) should have a financial system in place where he(they) can guarantee everyone's wages, bar those on the team caught for doping be it riders, soigneurs, doctors etc..

I thought that's what the bank guarantee is for?

 

[Publicus]

It still does not make it the UCI's fault. I dont like it anymore than anyone else, but he tested positive and could not prove how it got into his system with a plausible explanation. Therefore he is banned and all that goes with that.

I don't think I mentioned anything about it being UCI's fault. I only put it context. The punishment is not proportional to the alleged crime as determined by CAS.

 

[Walkman]

In his system as a result of a contaminated supplement. Make sure you state that correctly every time. He's guilty of taking a supplement that apparently CAS believes was contaminated. Not intentionally ingested as PED or to cheat, but was unfortunate to ingest a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor no less to insure no contamination. For that he loses his TdF, Giro and 11 other victories. And the other riders for Saxo Bank stand to lose a whole lot more. For a contaminated supplement.

Just because that's CAS verdict doesn't necessarily make it true. Most likley? Perhaps, but in reality only AC knows the full story.

 

[Publicus]

Just because that's CAS verdict doesn't necessarily make it true. Most likley? Perhaps, but in reality only AC knows the full story.

Wrong. That's the outcome of the case. Full stop. If it was that it most likely a transfusion, that would be the outcome of the case full stop. Instead we are left with this nonsense because he most likely ingested a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor.

I don't make the rules, that was CAS' conclusion and suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.

 

[ChrisE]

Well, they would still have to deal with the fact that any points Contador would score after coming back would not count towards the sporting criteria ranking the next two years so Saxo would need to do some serious recruiting in order to avoid being relegated to ProConti and if they get relegated I'm guessing they would be gone.

I have read this on the forum a couple of different places.

It is true when he comes back in Aug 2012 any points he gets until Aug 2014 do not count??????? That is bizaar and hard to believe.

Does anybody have a link to this? Thanks.

 

[Walkman]

Wrong. That's the outcome of the case. Full stop. If it was that it most likely a transfusion, that would be the outcome of the case full stop. Instead we are left with this nonsense because he most likely ingested a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor.

I don't make the rules, that was CAS' conclusion and suggesting otherwise is irreprehensible.

But you can't say it's true just because that's CAS' conclusion. It's not like they are all-knowing or something. They think that the contaminated supplement is the most likely one, but that doesn't mean it was what actually happend. I mean it could very well be the case but it not like we do know so for a fact.

By the way, didn't you mean "reprehensible"?

 

[Walkman]

I have read this on the forum a couple of different places.

It is true when he comes back in Aug 2012 any points he gets until Aug 2014 do not count??????? That is bizaar and hard to believe.

Does anybody have a link to this? Thanks.

How so? It's the new anti doping-rules.

 

[Publicus]

But you can't say it's true just because that's CAS' conclusion. It's not like they are all-knowing or something. They think that the contaminated supplement is the most likely one, but that doesn't mean it was what actually happend. I mean it could very well be the case but it not like we do know so for a fact.

By the way, didn't you mean "reprehensible"?

Yes (oops!)

As to your first point, I disagree. We have the learned opinion of CAS, the final arbiter of this matter, as to what most likely took place as it relates to the Contador matter. Instead of attempting to further hypothesize what happen, let's, for the sake of closure, accept CAS decision as written. As I said before, if they had concluded it was most likely the result of a transfusion, I would correct anyone else who suggested it was something else. Unless the decision is overturned (highly unlikely), it is what it is.

 

[ChrisE]

How so? It's the new anti doping-rules.

Whoa, so you are banned from racing (or retroactively banned) for 2 years, then once you return your points from your results are not accumulated for another 2 years?

I admit I am not a rule officianado, and I didn't realize this. I think it is BS, though.

Thanks.

 

[BYOP88]

Whoa, so you are banned from racing (or retroactively banned) for 2 years, then once you return your points from your results are not accumulated for another 2 years?

I admit I am not a rule officianado, and I didn't realize this. I think it is BS, though.

Thanks.

Yeah those are the rules, so for example Movistar get 0 points for Valverde's stage win and 2nd place finish in the TDU and any other WT points he picks up for the next 2 years mean Movistar score 0. I'm not sure if for example the guy who finished 3rd on GC gets the points for 2nd and so on.