Vino bought the 2010 LBL?

[BroDeal]

No, what we know is that Vino offered $100,000 to someone so he would win.

You don't know that. Kolobnev may have initiated the conversation that led to an agreement.

 

[El Pistolero]

You don't know that. Kolobnev may have initiated the conversation that led to an agreement.

Which Vino accepted. Ergo he should still be punished. Both should be punished no matter who started it first. But ok, I should have phrased that differently.

 

[webvan]

And Kolobnev knows it was wrong, re, the "ball cutting" business.

 

[The Hitch]

They do but you have to remember that nobody in golf is paid a salary like in cycling. Same with tennis. And they have quite a lot of overheads.

I've argued on another website that while Contador and Cavendish may not make the same money as McIlroy and Michelson or Nadal and Novak, the people who are ranked 200 in the world at cycling are making a much better living than the golfers and tennis players at the same rank.

Don't judge a sport's welfare by it's top earners.

200 in golf or tennis has the knowledge that they can drop out and earn a killing in coaching.

Also I doubt that when they go to the majors they have to share a hotel room.

 

[The Hitch]

For the likes of Cancellara perhaps.

Ummm for Contador too. Basso also did just Giro Tour and by the end of Tour, he was like - **** this.

Vino was clearly weaker by the Tour. Definitely not on peak for it like Liege.

As for the implication that Gilbert managed a longer peak this year, he didn't do no Giro.

 

[El Pistolero]

Ummm for Contador too. Basso also did just Giro Tour and by the end of Tour, he was like - **** this.

Vino was clearly weaker by the Tour. Definitely not on peak for it like Liege.

As for the implication that Gilbert managed a longer peak this year, he didn't do no Giro.

Contador won the Giro and fifth at the Tour(would have been third if it wasn't for those crashes).

Basso is not nearly as good as some people think. Always has been a one peak, one season kind of guy after his ban.

I didn't see much difference between how he won LBL and how he won(and got third) a stage at the Tour. Besides, I'm not implicating anything here. I'll state it flat out: Gilbert had a longer peak.

 

[ramjambunath]

I've just been doing some reading of the Bribery act 2010 (in the UK, don't know much about Belgian laws, but they won't be too dissimilar) and according to that act would constitute a bribe and a police investigation could ensue. A sports body investigating its own sport doesn't really gets anywhere. Also, according to the bribery act, the briber and the bribee are both liable to be prosecuted, as is the fact everywhere.
Here are a few points from the Bribery act 2010-

A person (“P”) is guilty of the offence of giving a bribe if either of the following cases applies.
(2) Case 1 is where—
(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P intends the advantage—
(i) to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or
activity, or
(ii) to reward a person for the improper performance of such a
function or activity.

The law never explicitly states what type of employment the person investigated is in, so it's safe to assume that sports should fall under the purview of the Bribery act.

(1) A person (“R”) is guilty of an offence if any of the following cases applies.
(2) Case 3 is where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other
advantage intending that, in consequence, a relevant function or activity
should be performed improperly (whether by R or another person).
(3) Case 4 is where—
(a) R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage,
and
(b) the request, agreement or acceptance itself constitutes the improper
performance by R of a relevant function or activity.
(4) Case 5 is where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other
advantage as a reward for the improper performance (whether by R or another
person) of a relevant function or activity.
(5) Case 6 is where, in anticipation of or in consequence of R requesting, agreeing
to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage, a relevant function or
activity is performed improperly—
(a) by R, or
(b) by another person at R’s request or with R’s assent or acquiescence.
(6) In cases 3 to 6 it does not matter—
(a) whether R requests, agrees to receive or accepts (or is to request, agree
to receive or accept) the advantage directly or through a third party,
(b) whether the advantage is (or is to be) for the benefit of R or another
person.
(7) In cases 4 to 6 it does not matter whether R knows or believes that the
performance of the function or activity is improper.

The only question is, should we consider cyclists as people who fall under the ambit of law or just leave them and let them be an anarchic band of people because they've done it for decades.

From real life, it's obvious to say that it is the bribee who makes the cash demand and the briber the job demand, in this case demand of the result. It doesn't matter who's briber or bribee, both a culpable of breaking bribery laws. Arguing in a court of law that someone could have done the required job without a bribe but paid a bribe won't suffice, it's still guilty of a bribe.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

i've just been doing some reading of the bribery act 2010 (in the uk, don't know much about belgian laws, but they won't be too dissimilar) and according to that act would constitute a bribe and a police investigation could ensue. A sports body investigating its own sport doesn't really gets nowhere. Also, according to the bribery act, the briber and the bribee are both liable to be prosecuted, as is the fact everywhere.
Here are a few points from the bribery act 2010-

the law never explicitly states what type of employment the person investigated is in, so it's safe to assume that sports should fall under the purview of the bribery act.


The only question is, should we consider cyclists as people who fall under the ambit of law or just leave them and let them be an anarchic band of people because they've done it for decades.

in this case vino is the alleged briber and kolobnev the alleged bribee (it's obvious but for some reason this needs to be stated). From real life, i can say that it is the bribee who makes the cash demand and the briber the work demand, in this case demand of the result. It doesn't matter who's briber or bribee, both a culpable of breaking bribery laws. Arguing in a court of law that someone could have done the required job without a bribe but paid a bribe won't suffice, it's still guilty of a bribe.

yes!!!! :d

 

[ramjambunath]

Geebus, you read fast.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

haha?



10 cara

 

[craig1985]

So what people do if you were in that situation? You know you're the faster of the two in a two-man sprint but you're offered a 6 figure sum which is five times as much as what the winner will get, but you will have Liège–Bastogne–Liège on your palmarès and an even bigger contract.

 

[fasthill]

So what people do if you were in that situation? You know you're the faster of the two in a two-man sprint but you're offered a 6 figure sum which is five times as much as what the winner will get, but you will have Liège–Bastogne–Liège on your palmarès and an even bigger contract.

The price money is meaningless in races like these. What's €20,000 split between the team for a rider who makes several hundred a year? I'm not even sure €100,000 is large enough sum of money for LBL to be given away. He would've gotten a bonus and a bigger contract which would be more than €100,000.

 

[La Pandera]

So what people do if you were in that situation? You know you're the faster of the two in a two-man sprint but you're offered a 6 figure sum which is five times as much as what the winner will get, but you will have Liège–Bastogne–Liège on your palmarès and an even bigger contract.

I'm personally skittish about running foul of the law in any way so I would avoid anything that could potentially in the future lead to any embarrassment/humiliation publicly,thus ruining my reputation. A win in what I consider to be one of the most prestigious races would trump any underhanded pocket lining that would be the alternative to the fame and joy of winning LBL. It would be an easy decision.

 

[Cloxxki]

I'm personally skittish about running foul of the law in any way so I would avoid anything that could potentially in the future lead to any embarrassment/humiliation publicly,thus ruining my reputation. A win in what I consider to be one of the most prestigious races would trump any underhanded pocket lining that would be the alternative to the fame and joy of winning LBL. It would be an easy decision.

You're kidding right?
Here you have two riders who'll most likely be remembered as hardcore participants of the decades of medical deceit in sports. Being Russian speaking unfortunately isn't helping them. Getting caught blood doping, well that sealed it.
They can't change that anymore. Better men tried and failed. But they cán be 100k up whiledealing with that reality. Vino by being Vino and waking up richer every day, Kol by not disrespecting the pennies he notices on the road.

 

[happychappy]

Ummm for Contador too. Basso also did just Giro Tour and by the end of Tour, he was like - **** this.

If Basso 2006 had been allowed to start 06 TDF he'd have been like **** this, too easy!

 

[joe_papp]

Which Vino accepted. Ergo he should still be punished. Both should be punished no matter who started it first. But ok, I should have phrased that differently.

You're quite simply wrong to make such an assumption - that they should be punished. As I explained previously, the collusion rule is quite open to interpretation as to what it would take to violate it.

Unfortunately for all of you who insist on rolling around in your morality and showing it off to the rest of us, the rules don't say, "you shall not offer or accept $134k while racing to the finish of L-B-L."

Go back and re-read the rule?

 

[El Pistolero]

You're quite simply wrong to make such an assumption - that they should be punished. As I explained previously, the collusion rule is quite open to interpretation as to what it would take to violate it.

Unfortunately for all of you who insist on rolling around in your morality and showing it off to the rest of us, the rules don't say, "you shall not offer or accept $134k while racing to the finish of L-B-L."

Go back and re-read the rule?

'If it was anyone else but you I would have gone for the victory"

 

[ramjambunath]

I've posted excerpts from the law called the Bribery Act 2010 for a reason. The fact is through that interpretation, if the allegations are true, both riders are guilty and face arrest of upto a year in jail according to this law and this is not taking into consideration the laws regarding match fxing. Even if we follow the UCI laws, I don't see how accepting a payment to come second is in the interest of fair competition, what's clear is that the UCI haven't had the balls to fight this type of corruption and hence have framed such a vague law on such an important matter. Let the investigation go to the Belgian police.

It's not a case of burning Vinokourov because he's Vinokourov, my stance is applicable to any sportsman taking a kickback to lose and offering a kickback for the ooposition to lose. It would have been the same if Luke Donald offered an amount to Rory McIlroy to not win the Dubai World Championships. Match fixing is a topic, just like doping, where there should be no leeway for leniency as it spreads like wildfire and by a few years there's no distinguishing the real winner from the man who paid most or received most.

So what people do if you were in that situation? You know you're the faster of the two in a two-man sprint but you're offered a 6 figure sum which is five times as much as what the winner will get, but you will have Liège–Bastogne–Liège on your palmarès and an even bigger contract.

It's best to do what Haddin, Watson, Lee and Warner did. Report it to relevant authorities, not that that would lead to anything.

 

[fasthill]

'If it was anyone else but you I would have gone for the victory"

Sure, this seals it, case closed. Without knowing the substance of their conversation, you're rushing to a conclusion you prefer to see.

I'm reading all this self righteous stomping on the internet and wonder, would there be the same amount of noise if it was the media's darling, someone like Voigt mixed up in something like this? I'm sure he would've been given a benefit of a doubt before being condemned on such irrefutable evidence.

Speaking of Voigt, it reminds me of the same race in 2005 Vino won. Didn't they come together to the finish and Vino dropped him like he dropped Kolobnev? Maybe he paid him too? It's Vino after all, a crook. T-Mobile was without a win up to that point, a desperate situation

 

[ramjambunath]

Sure, this seals it, case closed. Without knowing the substance of their conversation, you're rushing to a conclusion you prefer to see.

I'm reading all this self righteous stomping on the internet and wonder, would there be the same amount of noise if it was the media's darling, someone like Voigt mixed up in something like this? I'm sure he would've been given a benefit of a doubt before being condemned on such irrefutable evidence.

Speaking of Voigt, it reminds me of the same race in 2005 Vino won. Didn't they come together to the finish and Vino dropped him like he dropped Kolobnev? Maybe he paid him too? It's Vino after all, a crook. T-Mobile was without a win up to that point, a desperate situation

Voigt, Schleck, Armstrong, Contador, Gilbert and anyone else. Taking a bribe to lose is illegal. Cyclists aren't immune to the law, us people who condemn corruption in every facet of life don't want to see it in a sport as well. If they have a leeway, why not the media, why not politicians? Everyone falls under the ambit of law and the law states that taking and giving a bribe is illegal and that is what is alleged.

 

[fasthill]

Taking a bribe to lose is illegal.

Just because you call it a bribe doesn't make it so. No one knows what exactly happened. If emails are true, all we know is that Kolobnev asked Vino to transfer 100,000 Euros into his bank account after the LBL. That's all. And here you are, quoting some irrelevant British law about bribes. If there's nothing else to it, both Vino's and Kolobnev's lawyers will have an easy day in the office talking to that Swiss magazine.

 

[BroDeal]

Just because you call it a bribe doesn't make it so. No one knows what exactly happened. If emails are true, all we know is that Kolobnev asked Vino to transfer 100,000 Euros into his bank account after the LBL. That's all. And here you are, quoting some irrelevant British law about bribes. If there's nothing else to it, both Vino's and Kolobnev's lawyers will have an easy day in the office talking to that Swiss magazine.

There is no evidence that he took money "to lose" either. People are overlooking the likelihood that Kolobnev did not think he could beat Vino, so he simply increased his earnings for second place and the posturing after the fact in emails is that of a man trying to get his money.

 

[ramjambunath]

Just because you call it a bribe doesn't make it so. No one knows what exactly happened. If emails are true, all we know is that Kolobnev asked Vino to transfer 100,000 Euros into his bank account after the LBL. That's all. And here you are, quoting some irrelevant British law about bribes. If there's nothing else to it, both Vino's and Kolobnev's lawyers will have an easy day in the office talking to that Swiss magazine.

Read all my posts through the thread before making judgment.

Without an investigation nothing will be revealed, I also don't realise how bribery is irrelevant here. Kolobnev claims in the alleged mail that he was stronger than ever and then allegedly receives $100k in the days following the LBL. If that doesn't seem suspicious to you and if bribery doesn't come into the equation, then I'm sorry for your naivety.

I'm not saying he's guilty by the way.

 

[OJ....]

Well this is news I guess...Riders have bought races and riders have sold races since there has been glory or money to be gained. I think that there is something about racing to win in the rules, so wouldn't this expand the whole problem into a rather large storm in our little duck pond?

So are there facts on the table that Kolobnev was stronger than Vino on that day? Maybe he was stronger than ever, but take a quick peek at his 2010 palmares and find a bigger result than 2nd at Liege or while you're at it, is there any similar results for him in 2010?

 

[ozerulz]

Voigt, Schleck, Armstrong, Contador, Gilbert and anyone else. Taking a bribe to lose is illegal. Cyclists aren't immune to the law, us people who condemn corruption in every facet of life don't want to see it in a sport as well. If they have a leeway, why not the media, why not politicians? Everyone falls under the ambit of law and the law states that taking and giving a bribe is illegal and that is what is alleged.

OMG-worried about bribery in sports? No wonder politicians and bankers get away with as much as they do. Save it for the things in life that matter. Oh wait you think you are.