Gran Fondo Hincapie (Feat. Lance)

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
DirtyWorks said:
What crusade? Wada rules apply to the event. I posted the link to the release. And yes, riders get a one-day USAC license as a condition of doing the ride.

If you check the organizer's rule, you will see that they suggest sorting riders by racer category, then the one-day licenses go last.

It is much more structured than the UK. There are still plenty of organized rides outside usac that call themselves a gran fondo. Doper gran fondo is not one of them.
I'm not disgareeing with you. The issue here is how USADA can "enforce" the rule? He is life banned. Adding 2 years to life is still life.

The only way I see is if USAC find a way to sanction the event. But it's rolling, has sponsors, public, charity etc. And USAC have that dichotomy of trying to promote races (rides) as well.

I'm not sure what the anwser is. Perhaps they should just let it roll without all the hype.
 
DirtyWorks said:
What crusade? Wada rules apply to the event. I posted the link to the release. And yes, riders get a one-day USAC license as a condition of doing the ride.

If you check the organizer's rule, you will see that they suggest sorting riders by racer category, then the one-day licenses go last.

It is much more structured than the UK. There are still plenty of organized rides outside usac that call themselves a gran fondo. Doper gran fondo is not one of them.
What measurable evil is generated if Lance rides? (Nah ... don't hit that "I" key to start the 'It sends out the wrong message' parable.)

Maybe the fondo donates some money to a good cause. Participants like Lance would have to donate some cash.

Dilemma for some of you is when 'bad guys do decent things' or have some fun. Own your neurosis.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Alpe73 said:
What measurable evil is generated if Lance rides? (Nah ... don't hit that "I" key to start the 'It sends out the wrong message' parable.)

Maybe the fondo donates some money to a good cause. Participants like Lance would have to donate some cash.

Dilemma for some of you is when 'bad guys do decent things' or have some fun. Own your neurosis.
I don't see how riding in a noncompetitive event violates any ban that was imposed. Lance's doping (past, present, or future) won't give him any unfair advantage in a non-race.

But there are zealots who think that Lance's presence will somehow spoil the sport. I don't think they need to worry. The sport was hopelessly filthy before Lance, and remains hopelessly filthy afterward.
 
MarkvW said:
I don't see how riding in a noncompetitive event violates any ban that was imposed. Lance's doping (past, present, or future) won't give him any unfair advantage in a non-race.
Because the event operates under WADA standards. For those not aware, in the U.S. there are three basic ways to categorize bike rides:
Unsanctioned event: promoter gets her own insurance and everything else. Could be a race, could be timed and not a race, could be a fun ride.
usac sanctioned event: usac provides lots of stuff including insurance. Must have license. You must agree to abide by the WADA standard. Could be a race, could be a gran fondo.
Other federation sanctioned event. promoter gets her insurance from the federation that is not USAC. Not WADA signatories.

MarkvW said:
But there are zealots who think that Lance's presence will somehow spoil the sport. I don't think they need to worry. The sport was hopelessly filthy before Lance, and remains hopelessly filthy afterward.
Throwing zealots out is another personal attack.

On plain facts of the matter, if in fact WADA anti-doping framework meant anything beyond theater, the federation's first response should have been, "Wonderboy is banned. Wonderboy is not riding this event."

Race Radio brings up an excellent point. What can they do to a guy with a lifetime ban if he showed up and rode anyway? <shrug> what does a promoter do with freeloaders on a fun ride??

The whole situation emphasizes the simple fact the IOC's anti-doping system is a charade. That is exacly your point, hopelessly filthy.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Because the event operates under WADA standards.



Throwing zealots out is another personal attack.

On plain facts of the matter, if in fact WADA anti-doping framework meant anything beyond theater, the federation's first response should have been, "Wonderboy is banned. Wonderboy is not riding this event."

Race Radio brings up an excellent point. What can they do to a guy with a lifetime ban if he showed up and rode anyway? <shrug> what does a promoter do with freeloaders on a fun ride??

The whole situation emphasizes the simple fact the IOC's anti-doping system is a charade.
If the gran fondo is noncompetitive, then Lance isn't banned from it. People who want go beyond the rules to ban Lance are zealots. It's not that complicated.
 
Alpe73 said:
What measurable evil is generated if Lance rides? (Nah ... don't hit that "I" key to start the 'It sends out the wrong message' parable.)
Viewers begin to doubt the anti-doping system that is supposed to protect the sport actually works. That's sending the wrong message.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
USAC isn't the organising body for the vast majority of races in the US, that's a red herring.
Not true unless you live in Oregon,.

Alex Simmons/RST said:
It is organised by a USAC affiliated (and hence UCI) club - the Greenville Spinners, and all USAC affiliated clubs are bound by the WADA code. It's a condition of their membership and affiliation.

Hincape's fondo also has a permit from USAC (Permit Number: 2014-2821) and they advertise one day licences for it (entries now closed).
http://www.usacycling.org/events/?state=SC
The club is a USA cycling registered club. The event does not have two permits.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Viewers begin to doubt the anti-doping system that is supposed to protect the sport actually works. That's sending the wrong message.
1. An event happens.
2. A message in a bottle is inferred by various people.
3. People like you infer a threat (of course, that's to be expected and is your God-given right, son).
4. Other infer a range of messages ... one being ... "I see no threat; glad they were able to get together for a good cause and have some fun ... and sandblast the 666 of TVG's forehead."
 
Simple fact is that Armstrong has been handed a life ban from participating in any event that falls under the administration of a body that is a signatory to the WADA code. The status of the event isn't relevant.

He's either got a life ban or he doesn't. Armstrong by his actions forfeited his right to participate in such events. That's part of his ban.

If the ban is not enforced, then why bother having bans? It'd be just like all the other rules that were ignored for him over the last 15 years.

Same would apply if he wanted to take up athletics, basketball or ITU triathlon.

He can go ride his bike as much as he likes, just not in an event sanctioned by a body that's a signatory to WADA.

The sanction for permitting it to happen should then not be on Armstrong, but on the body permitting him to participate and not uphold the ban - it should threaten their status as a WADA signatory and hence Olympic and World Championship participation status.
 
MarkvW said:
Is a gran fondo a competition?
It depends on where you are. In many locations they are, have considerable prize money on offer and there are teams dedicated to racing and winning them. This happens in Europe a lot. There's even a considerable doping problem.

The UCI has a granfondo series all around the world of something like 20 events, which are all qualifying events for the UCI world masters road championships, which is itself another fondo.

Some fondos of course are just participation events. However most of them use timing systems, which of course implies they are challenges with riders ranked based on performance.

I class fondos as a bit like most triathlons and city fun runs. There are those really competitive at the pointy end with prize money on offer, while the rest are riding to challenge themselves over some toughish terrain.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Is this just some old Postal lads havin' fun for a good cause?
Or a carefully masterminded test balloon from Lance.?
With the aim of dismantling the 'persona non grata' discourse...

Steady and slowly getting back in the game...

Maybe all the fuss is based upon the concern of what will be next...?
That would be my immediate concern...
It's not about some stupid Hincapie Gran Fondo.
Maybe it's about a potential (psychological) precedence...

WIth my limited knowledge of his persona I would consider it a risk to let a guy like him get a foot back in the door...

I know little of how his case(s) are developing but surely must be better for him if he can say:

See! Despite of this and that -I'am still accepted... They still love me. They still need me....
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
If the ban is not enforced, then why bother having bans?
Good question ... that cultivates discussion on the wisdom of certain legislation/directives in regards to the power of their jurisdiction over non competitive charity events.

Lance's life ban is for being an non cooperative a-hole, not for being an uber junkie. (He was a potential 6 monther, 5 jerseys retainer). He has since cooperated with CIRC.

You may not like it, but there remains a small window of opportunity that Lance's ban may be reduced ( not that I'd bet on that).

Him participating/or not at George's GF has more to do with certain fans' animosity than with preserving the integrity of cycling were he to be allowed to participate.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Simple fact is that Armstrong has been handed a life ban from participating in any event that falls under the administration of a body that is a signatory to the WADA code. The status of the event isn't relevant.

He's either got a life ban or he doesn't. Armstrong by his actions forfeited his right to participate in such events. That's part of his ban.

If the ban is not enforced, then why bother having bans? It'd be just like all the other rules that were ignored for him over the last 15 years.

Same would apply if he wanted to take up athletics, basketball or ITU triathlon.

He can go ride his bike as much as he likes, just not in an event sanctioned by a body that's a signatory to WADA.

The sanction for permitting it to happen should then not be on Armstrong, but on the body permitting him to participate and not uphold the ban - it should threaten their status as a WADA signatory and hence Olympic and World Championship participation status.
Very good point. I'm amazed that Jon Teirnen-Lock was allowed to ride a sportive in the UK, the UCI have set a precedent there by allowing that, contrary to the one they set previously not allowing Tyler Hamilton to ride non-sanctioned events. Bans are more about who you are rather than what you did or what you're banned for.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I PM'd you coz it's annoying the snot out of me to be misunderstood.
replied, so no need for the rest of your post here, but hope it clears the air...

although, should have quoted this as it further illustrates where I was coming from and perceptions.
Race Radio said:
Ahh, of course. Anyone who thinks your absurd questions are absurd gets labeled a "White Night". :rolleyes:

<snipped>

...but most here can see it is nonsense.
now back to the debate on whether LA should ride and what/who will do anything about it...
 
“I think it sends out the wrong signal, it shows that doping pays."

But six month 'bans' in winter, whilst allowing them race that year's tour, as part of their deal with Travis really shows doping doesn't pay. :rolleyes:
 
Alpe73 said:
What measurable evil is generated if Lance rides? (Nah ... don't hit that "I" key to start the 'It sends out the wrong message' parable.)

Maybe the fondo donates some money to a good cause. Participants like Lance would have to donate some cash.

Dilemma for some of you is when 'bad guys do decent things' or have some fun. Own your neurosis.
I'd just like to see him kicked off it and not get his own way. He's screwed over enough folk, so call it karma to a degree.
 
Archibald said:
I'd just like to see him kicked off it and not get his own way. He's screwed over enough folk, so call it karma to a degree.
Love your honesty, dude ... it's the very heart of the matter. Pay off for you ... YOU get your own way. Genius. Another one for the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

'Karma' ... FFS ... the echinacea of the neuvo neuros.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Hincape's fondo also has a permit from USAC (Permit Number: 2014-2821) and they advertise one day licences for it (entries now closed).
http://www.usacycling.org/events/?state=SC
None of the riders listed in the OP's linked article are entered. Are they not just doing their own reunion ride before or after the Gran Fondos? Could be a lot of fuss over not much at all.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Digger said:
“I think it sends out the wrong signal, it shows that doping pays."

But six month 'bans' in winter, whilst allowing them race that year's tour, as part of their deal with Travis really shows doping doesn't pay. :rolleyes:
Im pretty sure doping pays for Betsy too. I mean, she is the go to person for almost everything regarding Lance. Surely all those interviews and the victory tour must have earned her something?
 
The Hincapie/Armstrong gang appear to have boycotted Leipheimer. Very unfair. Here is a dog and pony show for the poor fellow.

Bottle was a full member of the postal/discovery setup.


Levi promotes booze.


Leipheimer with or without hair.


Hes a true american with a US passport.



So please go ahead and invite him ffs, think about the amount of bottles he fetched and since he confessed to doping he should fully qualify for the event.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
they forgot JV too :(

Would be the perfect event for him. His PR skills would be put to the ultimate test when he would interact with the old and new generation at the same time.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
It depends on where you are. In many locations they are, have considerable prize money on offer and there are teams dedicated to racing and winning them. This happens in Europe a lot. There's even a considerable doping problem.

The UCI has a granfondo series all around the world of something like 20 events, which are all qualifying events for the UCI world masters road championships, which is itself another fondo.

Some fondos of course are just participation events. However most of them use timing systems, which of course implies they are challenges with riders ranked based on performance.

I class fondos as a bit like most triathlons and city fun runs. There are those really competitive at the pointy end with prize money on offer, while the rest are riding to challenge themselves over some toughish terrain.
This doesn't matter. The question is whether this is some kind of official USAC sanctioned event. It isn't just because it is on their website and they are offering insurance to the organizer IMO. USAC doesn't seem to have a clear answer themselves. There are many, many events like this listed and covered in a similar respect, timed or not. Local training Crits etc..

USADA/Tygart of course want to dog/pony show to garner more attention for themselves about how these guys are all bad, although, Tygart won't show up and donate his own personal money/time to the cause. His highness has a different authority (US Government and gathering tax dollars).

It is one thing for these guys to profit off the doping, not that I know the financials of the situation intimately, most of this money goes to charitable causes. Yeah, I know Livestrong, but Lance or anybody else that shows up isn't making really a dime off this. Not like the old days.

I personally wouldn't be there. I race sanctioned events and compete under the rules. These things are a waste of time/money. But I know there is a market/class of riders this stuff appeals to.

If they can live with themselves, well, not much anybody can do. That includes TJ and the younger riders who are showing up. Pat each other on the back for each other's events. Part of the game I suppose.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Alpe73 said:
Love your honesty, dude ... it's the very heart of the matter. Pay off for you ... YOU get your own way. Genius. Another one for the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

'Karma' ... FFS ... the echinacea of the neuvo neuros.
Your love of Armstrong is not very well disguised.
 
Aug 5, 2009
266
0
9,030
the sceptic said:
Im pretty sure doping pays for Betsy too. I mean, she is the go to person for almost everything regarding Lance. Surely all those interviews and the victory tour must have earned her something?
Yeah, vindication, that's what I got from all of this. The truth did not/does not pay financially.

on another note, isn't that Haven's partner right behind Levi leaning over?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS