UCI: Di Luca Can't Ride Free

[euanli]

It occurred to me yesterday that it was a bit odd that Di Luca would be racing for free given the UCI states a minimum wage for World/ProTour teams. Shane Stokes has pressed the UCI on this and they have confirmed this and he must be paid a minimum of €33,000 by Katusha if he gets a contract.

Nothing wrong with that, seems like the UCI are doing the right thing and protecting riders from being abused.

However it occurred to me earlier that when Armstrong came back in 2009 a big thing was made about how it was all about cancer. Astana were not going to pay him a dime to ride for them. We all know that the UCI then bent the anti doping rules to let Armstrong race a month early and ride the TDU.

I see three possible scenarios:

1. The UCI bent the rules again for Armstrong and he didn't get paid
2. Armstrong got paid and lied about it
3. Armstrong got paid and donated the money to Livestrong

I'd discount the third because if he did he wouldn't have said he wasn't getting paid. It would all my money is going to Livestrong. So either we have Pat bending over again or Liestrong in action again.

Source: Velonation

 

[Ferminal]

Armstrong would have collected over $5m in apperance fees from 2009 alone.

During the 2009 Astana financial problems, Lance was as vocal as anyone with regards to the wage payments etc was he not?

(obviously concerned about his teammates', not his own finances ).

I doubt that he wasn't getting a salary from Astana, perhaps someone could tweet to the nice fellow and ask him.

 

[Roland Rat]

Why bother with the middle-man - his salary went straight to the UCI.

 

[euanli]

Or perhaps a Swiss bank account belonging to the reputable P McQuaid

 

[BotanyBay]

For all we know, the UCI might be paying people to ride.

UCI routinely ignores well-documented and well-known rules such as these.

For example, the doping rule that sates that a rider is prohibited from riding with any ProTour team for an additional 2 years beyond ANY suspension.

But Pat has an answer for everything, and it'll be your bad for having asked him.

 

[Magnus]

For all we know, the UCI might be paying people to ride.

UCI routinely ignores well-documented and well-known rules such as these.

For example, the doping rule that sates that a rider is prohibited from riding with any ProTour team for an additional 2 years beyond ANY suspension.

Isn't the two years beyond suspension more part of some non-binding ethics-crap than a UCI-rule?

 

[Benotti69]

Isn't the two years beyond suspension more part of some non-binding ethics-crap than a UCI-rule?

nah, it's another silly little rule that can be bought off

 

[BotanyBay]

Isn't the two years beyond suspension more part of some non-binding ethics-crap than a UCI-rule?

They certainly presented it as a rule. You never know with the UCI, as the target is always one that moves.

 

[DirtyWorks]

For all we know, the UCI might be paying people to ride.

UCI routinely ignores well-documented and well-known rules such as these.

For example, the doping rule that sates that a rider is prohibited from riding with any ProTour team for an additional 2 years beyond ANY suspension.

But Pat has an answer for everything, and it'll be your bad for having asked him.

There is no rule that gets in the way of Pat's show.

 

[TERMINATOR]

For all we know, the UCI might be paying people to ride.

UCI routinely ignores well-documented and well-known rules such as these.

For example, the doping rule that sates that a rider is prohibited from riding with any ProTour team for an additional 2 years beyond ANY suspension.

But Pat has an answer for everything, and it'll be your bad for having asked him.

That 2-year ban was never a UCI rule.

 

[BotanyBay]

That 2-year ban was never a UCI rule.

What WAS it then. They never talked about it in the press as anything other than that. If you have any references to support it not being official, I'd love to see that.

Look, when the president of the UCI says it's a rule, people tend to believe.

 

[hrotha]

That was a voluntary ethics code agreed to by the teams.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2007/06/news/teams-agree-to-enforce-ethics-code_12406

But I'm not sure about the dates. Didn't Discovery breach the Code of Ethics by signing Basso?

 

[isayic]

I see three possible scenarios:

1. The UCI bent the rules again for Armstrong and he didn't get paid
2. Armstrong got paid and lied about it
3. Armstrong got paid and donated the money to Livestrong

I'd discount the third because if he did he wouldn't have said he wasn't getting paid. It would all my money is going to Livestrong. So either we have Pat bending over again or Liestrong in action again.

Source: Velonation

For riding the Giro Lance got a big amount of money only for his appearance and asmaller amount for his foundation.
I don't have the numbers available but this says what seemed to be more important.

 

[Mambo95]

I see three possible scenarios:

1. The UCI bent the rules again for Armstrong and he didn't get paid
2. Armstrong got paid and lied about it
3. Armstrong got paid and donated the money to Livestrong

He most likely took Livestrong kit sponsorship in lieu of salary

 

[theswordsman]

I saw a couple of articles on it. I wondered the same thing about Lance, but one article on DiLuca mentioned there had to be the minimum salary and Ernst & Young needed to see the contract. I know better to believe anything that Lance says, but I believe at the time he said he had no contract with Astana. They certainly had no power over him, or the ability to make him stay at training camp, or tell him what races he would be in, or God help him, when he was to work for someone else. I think the lack of a contract was the reason he could train in Livestrong or Mellow Johnny's kit.

Again, I don't believe a word he says, but if a contract did exist, he would have had to train in their kit. Whether the UCI should have allowed the situation, well, I'm so sick of the UCI that I'll leave it up to others. Fingers crossed for a win of Pellizotti against the Biological Passport as a first step toward a serious fight against doping in the sport. If teams want to pay good money for the BP, it should be used to target test for actual substances. They're not doing that right.

 

[BotanyBay]

McQuaid almost always reminds me of Minister Cornelius Fudge from the Harry Potter books and films. Their respective personalities are uncannily similar (not to mention their appearances),

Elected (perhaps), but always 100% dictator. Following the rules is only considered mandatory when he determines it to be important.