Movement for credible cycling!!

[RHRH19861986]

I think MPCC is still the best and most honest of these "clean cycling movements".

I think Sky´s approach is somewhere in between. Was surprised they fired deJongh, Yates, and this former Rabo doctor. They didn´t have to, but did.

The worst of these stories still remain Riis 2004/2005 ("We´re best team in the world though/because we´re super clean") and the Damsgaard fairytales later, with him working for Riis and then for Bruyneel at Astana. This was ridiculous, but shows the problem well: everyone can claim to be super-clean, even the biggest gangsters.

The last ridiculous stories, IMHO, come from within MPCC itself: Rolland/Voeckler and Kittel/Degenkolb. If that´s new, clean cycling, I have to vomit.

 

[del1962]

The last ridiculous stories, IMHO, come from within MPCC itself: Rolland/Voeckler and Kittel/Degenkolb. If that´s new, clean cycling, I have to vomit.

Do you have any evidence against these cyclists or are you just making insunuations?

 

[sniper]

more eyebrow-raising comments from the peloton

Evans has joined the movement.

“There has been such a change in mentality in cycling now, and I think we have left that behind us, and that’s why I say to cycling fans, let’s not lose faith.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/evans-on-doping-accusations-and-lance-armstrongs-tours

 

[cineteq]

Race organisers to give wildcard priority to MPCC members

"Its current members are AG2R La Mondiale, Argos-Shimano, Bretagne-Schuller, Cofidis, Europcar, FDJ, Garmin-Sharp, the Swiss IAM Cycling project, Lotto Belisol, NetApp and Saur Sojasun, while Astana, Bardiani-CSF, La Pomme Marseille have applied for membership in recent weeks."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/race-organisers-to-give-wildcard-priority-to-mpcc-members

So what do the teams need to provide to apply for membership?

 

[the sceptic]

All the doping in Astana is history. That stuff happened a long time ago. They have done a very serious job about being commited to clean cycling. I think they should be let in, but im awaiting JimmyFingers input on this.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Race organisers to give wildcard priority to MPCC members

"Its current members are AG2R La Mondiale, Argos-Shimano, Bretagne-Schuller, Cofidis, Europcar, FDJ, Garmin-Sharp, the Swiss IAM Cycling project, Lotto Belisol, NetApp and Saur Sojasun, while Astana, Bardiani-CSF, La Pomme Marseille have applied for membership in recent weeks."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/race-organisers-to-give-wildcard-priority-to-mpcc-members

So what do the teams need to provide to apply for membership?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't this effectively give the MPCC the right to choose which teams are eligable to gain wild cards being that they determin who may become members? If so, hopefully this is challenged in court asap.

 

[ebandit]

criteria

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't this effectively give the MPCC the right to choose which teams are eligable to gain wild cards being that they determin who may become members? If so, hopefully this is challenged in court asap.

my understanding is that teams had to adhere to a certain criteria.......

...obviously a doping team should not be able to become members

just because they applied

 

[Le Baroudeur]

my understanding is that teams had to adhere to a certain criteria.......

...obviously a doping team should not be able to become members

just because they applied

Fine, however my understanding was that all members have to agree to allow a new member?

Further what exactly constitutes a doping team? One member of the group allready has ridders that but for testimony would fall foul of their own rules?

I guess I'm just confussed as to who amoung the cycling fraternity elected the MPCC as representatives, and how this isn't anti-competative, undemocratic, or exclusive?

 

[howsteepisit]

And just why cannot professional cycling be undemocratic or exclusive? Its not a right to be a cyclist, to compete in cycling, or for a team to have a place in a race. I will give you that things should not be anti-competative, but even that is not a given. For what its worth, professional cycling sets its own standards, and those standards may or may not include transparency nor fairness. Its not a government for heavens sake.

 

[ebandit]

sign me up

Fine, however my understanding was that all members have to agree to allow a new member?

Further what exactly constitutes a doping team? One member of the group allready has ridders that but for testimony would fall foul of their own rules?

I guess I'm just confussed as to who amoung the cycling fraternity elected the MPCC as representatives, and how this isn't anti-competative, undemocratic, or exclusive?

by definition more members the better.............if team seeking membership

fulfilled criteria for membership do you really think that existing members

would block that team joining?

 

[Le Baroudeur]

And just why cannot professional cycling be undemocratic or exclusive? Its not a right to be a cyclist, to compete in cycling, or for a team to have a place in a race. I will give you that things should not be anti-competative, but even that is not a given. For what its worth, professional cycling sets its own standards, and those standards may or may not include transparency nor fairness. Its not a government for heavens sake.

And there was I thinking professional cycling was a collective of professional cyclists riding for teams under common rules.

What we have here is race organisers allowing certain teams (of questionable merit, with unverified principles, and convienient sanctions against riders) to decide who is allowed to compete.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

by definition more members the better.............if team seeking membership

fulfilled criteria for membership do you really think that existing members

would block that team joining?

I don't see where they state an obligation to do so, nor do I particularly trust the impartiality or ethics of all the current members, or recognise their right to be the custodians and arbiters for professional cyclist and cycling.

What the MPCC stands for realy isn't the issue here though... The issue is any noninclusive body of teams having a say in what teams they will compete against, for what ever reason. We have a governing body for that. As it is it's already predudicial if your team isn't registered in the nation the event is being held, rather than being based on fair and sporting merits.

 

[ebandit]

I don't see how I will Ever be Happy

errr.............right..............then go and tell MPCC

 

[Le Baroudeur]

errr.............right..............then go and tell MPCC

Feel free to delete the edited miss-quote.

The descision introduces possibilities for uncompetitive practices and as such, and in particular at this time, it's a worrying direction to take, irrespective of the moral banner under which it hides.

 

[ebandit]

told ya

Feel free to delete the edited miss-quote.

The descision introduces possibilities for uncompetitive practices and as such, and in particular at this time, it's a worrying direction to take, irrespective of the moral banner under which it hides.

as i suggested...........you will never be happy

 

[Le Baroudeur]

as i suggested...........you will never be happy

And you would be wrong.

A standard open to all competitors vs a standard decided by a few competitors and even then only if they feel like letting you in.

The former works for me.

Simples.

 

[ebandit]

right

A standard open to all competitors vs a standard decided by a few competitors and even then only if they feel like letting you in.

The former works for me.

so why ask the question above when you already know the answer /

have already made up your mind?

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Le Baroudeur]

so why ask the question above when you already know the answer /

have already made up your mind?

Because history is littered with injustice imposed in the wake of turmoil, and it's a highly relevant and important point and principle. Unfair advantage in sport isn't just achieved with the aid of a syringe.

Had the AIOCC wanted a principle adhered too they could simply have requested all the teams to gather and make a declaration to that effect.

The last thing the sport needs is more collusion, Zinoviev letters (*not the CN user), or Manchurian candidates.

[/url][/IMG]

Grow up.

 

[ebandit]

?

Grow up.

maybe?.................one day.........keep trollin' along

 

[Dazed and Confused]

And you would be wrong.

A standard open to all competitors vs a standard decided by a few competitors and even then only if they feel like letting you in.

The former works for me.

Simples.

Agree, it can be a problem when such a grass root organization suddenly gets traction and some power. Lets see how they handle the Astana application. Hopefully any decision will bring some details.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Lemond-candidat-a-la-presidence/331160

Apparently McQ has resigned, and Lemond has accepted the job at UCI, accordding to L'Equipe.

 

[Netserk]

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Lemond-candidat-a-la-presidence/331160

Apparently McQ has resigned, and Lemond has accepted the job at UCI, accordding to L'Equipe.

McQ hasn't resigned. Greg encourages him to resign.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

McQ hasn't resigned. Greg encourages him to resign.

Interesting. The second paragraph has been rewritten since I read it earlier today. Maybe a disinformation campaign is afoot.....

 

[Dazed and Confused]

MPCC suspends Europcar.

which means?

CN writeup:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-temporarily-suspends-team-europcar

I will iterate my stance on the issue (on a broader basis): Teams needs to be punished when their riders (with or without direct involvement from management) mess up.

Find a way please.

 

[Ferminal]

Yikes, do you think they will stop doping so they can get their membership back?