Re: Re:
That was not the difference.Logic-is-your-friend said:RedheadDane said:Like I said; the organisers could have kicked Sagan (or any other rider) out of all their races if it had happened today.
And you just said it yourself:
Sagan made his mistake after one race was over and the next started, so he could have been denied start in the next race (or next race by that organiser).
Keisse made his mistake after one race was over (in this case said race being the Tour of Turkey…) and the next started, that race being, you know, the Vuelta a San Juan, which he - once the incident saw the light of day - was denied start in.
Yes... and the point was, that they didn't boot Sagan. That for a similar offense, one rider is being punished, the other one is not. And you can say, that the world has changed, sure, but it was 6 years ago, not 60. I'm pretty sure it was not ok to grab a girls *** on live tv in much more of a "me-too" setting even 6 years ago. Sagan's action even took place during a race event (podium ceremony) unlike Keisse's. So what was the difference? The outcry on social media. This is simply put, not a correct way to pass judgement over what a rider does outside of a race. And again, this has nothing to do with my opinion on what he actually did. I oppose the vagueness of the rule, the randomness of who can invoke it, why and when, pass judgement and set the sentence, based on what an angry mob thinks should happen. Based on what one source claims (him rubbing his junk against her behind) while not waiting for proof and hearing out the other source (no contact). At that point, it didn't even matter anymore. Honestly i'm baffled how anyone can defend this type of "Pollice verso" judgement from ancient Rome. Because by default, if the angry internet mob is big enough, then the organizer has the allibi of invoking the rule based on image damage. One can even wonder, what exactly is needed for such a rule to be used. How much outcry is exactly needed? Which offense warrants the use of it? What if it became known, that a rider votes for a racist political party? Is it enough? By law, he is allowed to do that, but for me personally, it would be a bigger offense than the ill-conceived act of Keisse, which was a spur of the moment, lapse of judgement. While voting for a racist political party, has nothing to do with "spur of the moment", but is a well thought out decision. There are dozens of examples to be given (domestic violence, drunk driving, substance abuse...) and these race organizers, they simply lack the knowledge to interpret such offenses, they aren't judges, so they go by how much of a social outcry there is. Without the need to know the facts, without the need of the actual law, judgement can be passed. Yes, i can not agree with such "rules". And frankly, i 'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can. It has little to do with justice, it is all about PR. We have entered an age, where a known doping offender, who actively damages the image of the entire sport, can still enter races, but a rider who does something stupid outside of the race, can not.
This doesn't mean i think that Keisse should get away with what he did. But we have laws, police and a court for him to get his punnishment. It doesn't mean i think QuickStep did a commendable job handling the situation. They didn't and handled it poorly. I already gave my view on what they should have done (and could have done). And i'd be cool if UCI or some other independent organization gathered an ethics committee, a board of the same people fleshed out this vague and random rule, and sanctioned riders, based on facts, not on social outcry.