Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[kwikki]

So you are citing a race incident being decided by the UCI as an example of team management

You've not really thought this through.

The point is that the UCI governs by consensus, and the consensus includes the ASO (and RCS obviously) as well as the billionaire team owners/sponsors. Without these people the UCI doesn't exist.

 

[Benotti69]

UCI is an old established Federation that was there long before Billionaires got interested in cycling.

 

[thehog]

Re:

So you are citing a race incident being decided by the UCI as an example of team management

You've not really thought this through.

The point is that the UCI governs by consensus, and the consensus includes the ASO (and RCS obviously) as well as the billionaire team owners/sponsors. Without these people the UCI doesn't exist.

Well, again, no the UCI exists to govern the teams & its riders (you deleted that part). Its plain and simple.

The UCI could in practice bar a riders or a team from competing in a ASO race, it does so through doping and other conduct - Yates this year could not compete due to a doping ban issued by the UCI (via CADF) and not via ASO.

That's how simple this is, not sure why you're trying to make it anymore complex than presented.

Further to this point, the reason why there is some calls to have teams "capped" is that a large well budgeted team like Sky can afford to buy riders who then do not make a Tour or GT team. On any other team those riders could be helping in a weaker team (or in theory be a leader). For the overall good of the sport that may not be a good thing.

So thus far you've told us, the teams need to step, the sponsors need to step and ASO now needs to step up, anyone else you need to step up? :lol:

 

[thehog]

Re:

The point is that the UCI governs by consensus, and the consensus includes the ASO (and RCS obviously) as well as the billionaire team owners/sponsors. Without these people the UCI doesn't exist.

I would add; the UCI would still exist without ASO. The UCI governs not just the ProTour but all riders who form part of a national federation via racing licences. Believe or not, all the way down to the junior ranks and also women and the para-cycling athletes. So, yes, the UCI would still exist without ASO.

Which makes me think you really haven’t thought about any of this and are just here to try a ill-informed argument to stir up trouble, yes?

 

[kwikki]

I think you'll find it is you who has tried to pick an argument with me. You've tried to provoke with an unnecessary insulting tone and are now presenting yourself as a victim. I get the feeling you are well-practised at this.

I'm rather used to you posting disingenuous or incorrect information. Now you are being wilfully naive about what governance of the pro tour actually means in reality. As I've already said, the UCI governs by consensus. The recurring debacle of the UCI and ASO, with the complete u turn from the UCI in the face of ASO threats was a clear demonstration of where the balance of power lies.

Maybe this is a bit beyond your level of understanding, yes?

 

[thehog]

Re:

I'm rather used to you posting disingenuous or incorrect information. Now you are being wilfully naive about what governance of the pro tour actually means in reality. As I've already said, the UCI governs by consensus. The recurring debacle of the UCI and ASO, with the complete u turn from the UCI in the face of ASO threats was a clear demonstration of where the balance of power lies.

Maybe this is a bit beyond your level of understanding, yes?

Not at all, the UCI existed well before ASO and will continue to exist even with the various arm wrestles over the years (like any administrative governance organisations). In fact UCI managed to convince ASO (& RCS) to mandatorily include all ProTour teams in their races.

You might also remember back in 2008 (which is before 2012) Alberto Contador was riding for Astana and ASO did not invite them due to the doping issues in the 2007 Tour. However since that time ASO have come so far forward with the UCI they even allow Astana (because they are ProTour team) to ride along with Vino being a team director (and riding himself in 2010 again for Astana).

So, yes, there are times when ASO have had to bend because of the UCI, they will continute to battle but it is not one sided as you appear to be suggesting, no, that wouldn't be correct.

Not sure if you're trying to be deliberately obtuse or don't wish to see the obvious? (or just stirring up trouble?)

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

Are you on a mission to show the world that Sky use drugs too?

No. Sky use drugs much more than others

 

[Irondan]

Hog and Kwikki, please refrain from posting impersonal comments.

TIA

 

[Savant12]

Re: Re:

Are you on a mission to show the world that Sky use drugs too?

No. Sky use drugs much more than others

Quality over quantity

Astana probably use "more" drugs in light of their superb third weeks in Grand Tours. Though Aru let the team down.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Are you on a mission to show the world that Sky use drugs too?

No. Sky use drugs much more than others

Quality over quantity

Astana probably use "more" drugs in light of their superb third weeks in Grand Tours. Though Aru let the team down.

Yeah but it's OK that Astana use drugs because everyone knows they use drugs and they never pretend that they don't. Or something...

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Are you on a mission to show the world that Sky use drugs too?

No. Sky use drugs much more than others

But if everyone's using drugs, how does it matter? They're all filthy cheats

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

Are you on a mission to show the world that Sky use drugs too?

No. Sky use drugs much more than others

Quality over quantity

Astana probably use "more" drugs in light of their superb third weeks in Grand Tours. Though Aru let the team down.

Yeah but it's OK that Astana use drugs because everyone knows they use drugs and they never pretend that they don't. Or something...

Exposing hypocrisy is always a valid activity.
But I don't think it's just about the hypocrisy. The point being made is about doping harder and better.
Why do think Lance was so disliked in the golden age, while Ullrich not so much, even though Jan also doped?

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

is the match-fixer a worse cheater than a guy that dives to get a penalty?

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Are you on a mission to show the world that Sky use drugs too?

No. Sky use drugs much more than others

Quality over quantity

Astana probably use "more" drugs in light of their superb third weeks in Grand Tours. Though Aru let the team down.

Yeah but it's OK that Astana use drugs because everyone knows they use drugs and they never pretend that they don't. Or something...

Exposing hypocrisy is always a valid activity.
But I don't think it's just about the hypocrisy. The point being made is about doping harder and better.
Why do think Lance was so disliked in the golden age, while Ullrich not so much, even though Jan also doped?

Disliked by whom? Race organisers loved Armstrong. TV companies loved Armstrong. Equipment manufacturers loved Armstrong. The UCI loved Armstrong. Armstrong fans loved Armstrong. The media loved Armstrong. George Bush loved Armstrong.

With regards to the other riders, plenty of them loved him too, because he brought loads of money into cycling, plenty of which trickled down to them.

Post-USADA most threw Armstrong under the bus, because that is what cycling and the media demands of them.

It's a bit like totalitarian regimes. You get a certain picture painted about these places, but when you get there you find that most of the citizens are in on it.

Ullrich was popular because he was the valiant loser, and also because unlike Armstrong, he wasn't a c••t. Ullrich, however, was every bit as much as Armstrong into the game. He just wasn't as good at it on any level. Armstrong never turned up to the Tour with a beer gut.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

Disliked by whom? Race organisers loved Armstrong. TV companies loved Armstrong. Equipment manufacturers loved Armstrong. The UCI loved Armstrong. Armstrong fans loved Armstrong. The media loved Armstrong. George Bush loved Armstrong.

With regards to the other riders, plenty of them loved him too, because he brought loads of money into cycling, plenty of which trickled down to them.

Post-USADA most threw Armstrong under the bus, because that is what cycling and the media demands of them.

Maybe I'm just projecting...

Disliked by fans with their eyes open? Was that not clear in the context?

It's a bit like totalitarian regimes. You get a certain picture painted about these places, but when you get there you find that most of the citizens are in on it.

Dude? Really?

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

I asked you a question about Lance being disliked in the context of making the point some riders/teams dope harder and better. Why would you be confused about whom? And advance interested parts like media, UCI, "the guy's fans" and George Bush as possibilities?

Come on, man, I need you to think before posting.

 

[kwikki]

It's a very polarised situation now....post RD, post Floyd, post Oprah. It's definitive.

But it wasn't always. Think back to 2005, just after Armstrong's final victory, and the news paper publication alleging Armstrong's urine samples from 1999 tested positive for EPO. Leblanc, the Tour director, said Armstrong had fooled everybody:

http://old.chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2005/08/25/oth_4570.shtml

...and then, in 2009, they welcomed Armstrong back in with open arms.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

I asked you a question about Lance being disliked in the context of making the point some riders/teams dope harder and better. Why would you be confused about whom? And advance interested parts like media, UCI, "the guy's fans" and George Bush as possibilities?

Come on, man, I need you to think before posting.

It's probably a question of your comprehension skills, rather than my thinking skills.

You asked a question that contained the assumption that Armstrong was disliked during his riding years. I'm questioning that assumption.

With regards to the point about regimes, it's an analogy.

 

[Bolder]

Re: Re:

I asked you a question about Lance being disliked in the context of making the point some riders/teams dope harder and better. Why would you be confused about whom? And advance interested parts like media, UCI, "the guy's fans" and George Bush as possibilities?

Come on, man, I need you to think before posting.

It's probably a question of your comprehension skills, rather than my thinking skills.

You asked a question that contained the assumption that Armstrong was disliked during his riding years. I'm questioning that assumption.

With regards to the point about regimes, it's an analogy.

That is a good question about just how disliked he was. Recall that when he won the world roads he was apparently not popular in the peloton b/c he had a bad "American" attitude. Was he ever "liked" in the peloton? I sort of doubt it, but of course most riders had a vested interest in keeping up omerta, which our man Simeoni found out. After that incident ripped off the blinders it became apparently that LA wasn't who he appeared to be. But I'd agree that he was "liked" outside of the sport up until USADA came out...

 

[kwikki]

I think the key point is if he was disliked, then for what was he disliked? The suggestion here is that he was disliked because he took more drugs than the others.

I doubt that. I think he was disliked in the way that Hinault was disliked. That is to say, not universally, and for personality rather than anything else.

As long as the new money kept flowing in, and riders salaries and conditions improved they were all happy.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thats a first, so now Hinault was disliked?

Evreyone loved Hinault. :Loved Kelly. Fignon was somewhat controversial.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Thats a first, so now Hinault was disliked?

Evreyone loved Hinault. :Loved Kelly. Fignon was somewhat controversial.

LeMond loved him. Could never stop telling the world how much he loved him.

Most everyone (with some very, very obvious exceptions) respected Hinault. A lot of those same people actively disliked him, only learned to like him after he - and they - had hung up their wheels.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Thats a first, so now Hinault was disliked?

Evreyone loved Hinault. :Loved Kelly. Fignon was somewhat controversial.

Fignon repeatedly won the Prix Citron, awarded by the journalists and photographers to the least likeable rider at the Tour.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

I asked you a question about Lance being disliked in the context of making the point some riders/teams dope harder and better. Why would you be confused about whom? And advance interested parts like media, UCI, "the guy's fans" and George Bush as possibilities?

Come on, man, I need you to think before posting.

It's probably a question of your comprehension skills, rather than my thinking skills.

You asked a question that contained the assumption that Armstrong was disliked during his riding years. I'm questioning that assumption.

With regards to the point about regimes, it's an analogy.

You are still confused. The point is to provide support to the "cheating worse is worse" theory. You providing entities "liking" Armtrong, when they had a vested interest in his success is meaningless.

Now, answer the question. Fans, followers of the sport, with awareness of the situation. Like. Armstrong or Ullrich?

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

With regards to the point about regimes, it's an analogy.

It was a silly analogy, insultive to the people that suffered and suffer through totalitarian regimes.