Vino bought the 2010 LBL?

[BroDeal]

See. I knew Vino was a player.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

2. I am justifying the act of loaning (sometimes interest free, often without the expectation of being repaid) money to other riders to secure their cooperation during a race - or accepting money from another team or rider to support their immediate goal - because it isn't the type of collusion that's proscribed (or else it would've been prosecuted at least once already in the modern era), and it's a fundamental component of the tactical toolbox every good pro rider and DS should be aware of. And I've done it myself, several times - both ways.

Firstly, Joe, and "without wanting to make an enemy here" as you put it earlier in the thread, I think that most of us would probably be slow to accept "what Joe Papp has done himself" as the final arbiter of sporting morality.

Secondly, let's be more clear about the issue at stake here, not getting bogged down in the specifics of this case or in distinct issues like team orders. Are you or are you not justifying the practice of one rider giving cash payment to a rider on another team to throw his own chances in a final sprint?

 

[joe_papp]

lol

yes.

because:

a) you are jealous.
b) you are ignorant and you don't know nothing about cycling or any other professional sport.

next...

You know what would be really funny, if Kolobnev did actually offer not to sprint in exchange for $100k, but intended to sprint all along (thinking that $100k + the win was a helluva deal for himself, and knowing that to have sold the race for only that amt. would've made him look like a fool) - but then when Vino made his move, the Russian did actually cramp or crack or otherwise couldn't respond. Someone check the footage for a shot of his face when Vino's going for it! lol

 

[Cobblestones]

Kazach podium girls?

 

[Angliru]

You know what would be really funny, if Kolobnev did actually offer not to sprint in exchange for $100k, but intended to sprint all along (thinking that $100k + the win was a helluva deal for himself, and knowing that to have sold the race for only that amt. would've made him look like a fool) - but then when Vino made his move, the Russian did actually cramp or crack or otherwise couldn't respond. Someone check the footage for a shot of his face when Vino's going for it! lol

Yep Vino would've paid him the $100k after getting double crossed. That would've been really funny.

 

[Kwibus]

lol btw @ people thinking this is dope. you don't believe a convicted cyclist transfers money from his own account to another riders account to acquire doping :L they are not that stupid

Errr I've read this entire thread until this post and there hasn't been anyone linking this to doping?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Yep Vino would've paid him the $100k after getting double crossed. That would've been really funny.

As I understand it, at least in days of yore, some brighter than average riders would strike a deal within a small break to lose, contest the win and then collect on the deal if they lost.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Kolobnev won't be racing for 2 years to come lol.

kolobnev has been acquitted and is free to race. uci apealed but that won't hold I think

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Errr I've read this entire thread until this post and there hasn't been anyone linking this to doping?

What if this 100k deal was just a cover up for something far worse?
One can easily think what bad things Vino might need to excuse himself for.

here you go

 

[hfer07]

Perfect the UCI to save the day:


The International Cycling Union (UCI) has confirmed that it is seeking evidence from the Swiss magazine l’Illustré, which published allegations that Alexandre Vinokourov (Astana) paid rival Alexandr Kolobnev (Katusha) to let him win Liège-Bastogne-Liège in April 2010. In a statement issued this afternoon, the sport’s governing body confirmed that it wants to establish the facts before considering possible action over the matter.

“Further to the information published today in the Swiss magazine « L’Illustré » concerning alleged misconduct at the 2010 Liège-Bastogne-Liège race,” the statement reads, “the UCI has asked that the magazine provide the UCI with any evidence which would allow the facts to be clearly established. Once the situation has been evaluated the UCI will decide, in accordance with the UCI Rules, whether any measures need to be taken. Until the conclusion of this phase of the investigation, the UCI will make no further comments on this matter.”


http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...kourov-bribery-allegations.aspx#ixzz1fsOLdy00

so........ UCI is concern about Vino making a 100k payout to win a race, but is an insignificant matter the 100k(500k) payout to them by LA to get "some help to win 7 Tours"..............

 

[joe_papp]

Firstly, Joe, and "without wanting to make an enemy here" as you put it earlier in the thread, I think that most of us would probably be slow to accept "what Joe Papp has done himself" as the final arbiter of sporting morality.

You're free to idealize about it however you see fit, but I'm just telling you how it is actually out there on the road.

Secondly, let's be more clear about the issue at stake here, not getting bogged down in the specifics of this case or in distinct issues like team orders. Are you or are you not justifying the practice of one rider giving cash payment to a rider on another team to throw his own chances in a final sprint?

As long as the rider sportingly defends his chances (which means he doesn't refuse to sprint or fail to make a show of it) and as long as the race is entertaining and the outcome doesn't go against the interest of the competition, then trading cash or favors hardly seems likely to falsify the event. Otherwise, the entire history of the sport would've been negated and revised and rewritten and transformed long ago.

And no, I don't think that riders from different teams supporting one another at tactically-opportune times in any way equates to doping.

Yep Vino would've paid him the $100k after getting double crossed. That would've been really funny.

Of course Vino wouldn't have paid anything if something was agreed to and then he was double-crossed. What would've been funny was if Kolobnev had intended to double-cross Vino but failed to do so and the moment at which he realized his plan had unraveled and he was going to lose.

 

[DirtyWorks]

so........ UCI is concern about Vino making a 100k payout to win a race, but is an insignificant matter the 100k(500k) payout to them by LA to get "some help to win 7 Tours"..............

The UCI would do what it always does in their investigations. Stick it in a drawer and forget about it.

The story is a big win for the magazine. Unless law enforcement comes knocking at the magazine, The magazine can and should tell the UCI to buzz off.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

As long as the rider sportingly defends his chances (which means he doesn't refuse to sprint or fail to make a show of it) and as long as the race is entertaining and the outcome doesn't go against the interest of the competition, then trading cash or favors hardly seems likely to falsify the event. Otherwise, the entire history of the sport would've been negated and revised and rewritten and transformed long ago.

As long as a show is put on, whether people are paid to lose or not is irrelevant. That attitude resembles professional wrestling's kayfabe more closely than it does any actual sport.

I don't need you to point out that such things happen regularly in cycling, by the way, any more than I need you to tell me that the post-tour Crits are fixed. Shay Elliot, the first Irish rider to win a bunch of important races on the Continent, famously sold more races to others than he won himself. I'm just a little surprised to see people openly defending the practice of making actual cash payments to riders on other teams to throw a small group sprint. Defending being a different thing from "acknowledging the existence of".

 

[hrotha]

You're free to idealize about it however you see fit, but I'm just telling you how it is actually out there on the road.

Seriously, the more you speak, the less I'm able to see the difference with doping. Which is something you seem to fight against for some reason that, right now, escapes me.

 

[joe_papp]

Seriously, the more you speak, the less I'm able to see the difference with doping. Which is something you seem to fight against for some reason that, right now, escapes me.

How about because one is clearly against the rules and the other, not only is it not directly prohibited but simply paid lip service to in the broadest terms, it's been openly tolerated, written about, and sometimes even celebrated for the entire history of the sport without a single rider before Vino being attacked like this for it - let alone prosecuted.

 

[The Hitch]

As I understand it, at least in days of yore, some brighter than average riders would strike a deal within a small break to lose, contest the win and then collect on the deal if they lost.

It might even make the other rider confident that hes got the win and react too late.

But I think it would be obvious if the other rider had tried to win. I mean if you attack 1k out and get pipped at the line, you got some balls to to try to say that you lost on purpose.

 

[Anonymous]

Seriously, the more you speak, the less I'm able to see the difference with doping. Which is something you seem to fight against for some reason that, right now, escapes me.

I have to agree with this.

It's just rationalization. The question is this; is it sport?

The answer is obvious.

 

[hfer07]

The UCI would do what it always does in their investigations. Stick it in a drawer and forget about it.

The story is a big win for the magazine. Unless law enforcement comes knocking at the magazine, The magazine can and should tell the UCI to buzz off.

exactly-The only reason they're mad at the situation is because they didn't get a slice of the tartthey would have loved to make a deal with Vino behind closed doors to get his way to win it-but Vino- being a player-took care of it personally & "without intermediate channels"
BTW the only organization entitle to make any investigations is ASO since they own the race & paid the winning price-otherwise-as you wrote- UCI should fvck off!!!

 

[Anonymous]

How about because one is clearly against the rules and the other, not only is it not directly prohibited but simply paid lip service to in the broadest terms, it's been openly tolerated, written about, and sometimes even celebrated for the entire history of the sport without a single rider before Vino being attacked like this for it - let alone prosecuted.

The same could be said for doping up until the mid-1980's or so.

Not that American Football has anything to do with this but can anyone imagine a receiver paying off a defensive back to let him catch the game winning TD?? (Let's say in the play-offs or something significant).

Is it any wonder why Kolobnev was wondering if his balls were going to get cut off?

 

[joe_papp]

...It's just rationalization. The question is this; is it sport? ...

Based on everything I know about pro sport, yes, it's EXACTLY what sport is.

While it's one thing to be offended by doping, the degree to which some people seem offended and hurt by the reality of pro cycling makes me wonder 1) why you even follow it and 2) how you make it through your day without completely collapsing in the face of ... reality.

Not even the clergy of the Catholic Church could succeed in living the virtuous, pure, and moral lives supposedly prescribed by their faith. And yet you all seem to hold cycling to this impossibly high, fantastical, unrealistic moral standard that allows you to act righteously indignant when the players don't meet your expectations.

When you finish watching a movie do you flip out and curse the studios when you realize it wasn't real-life you just spent 90min being distracted by?

 

[El Pistolero]

Based on everything I know about pro sport, yes, it's EXACTLY what sport is.

While it's one thing to be offended by doping, the degree to which some people seem offended and hurt by the reality of pro cycling makes me wonder 1) why you even follow it and 2) how you make it through your day without completely collapsing in the face of ... reality.

Not even the clergy of the Catholic Church could succeed in living the virtuous, pure, and moral lives supposedly prescribed by their faith. And yet you all seem to hold cycling to this impossibly high, fantastical, unrealistic moral standard that allows you to act righteously indignant when the players don't meet your expectations.

When you finish watching a movie do you flip out and curse the studios when you realize it wasn't real-life you just spent 90min being distracted by?

No, but I get ****ed of when watching a reality TV show that's fake.

First of all, giving someone money to win a race isn't as widespread as you seem to think in this day and age. Do you think Goss paid off Cancellara and Gilbert? Do you think Nick Nuyens paid Cancellara and Chavanel in order to win? Do you think Vansummeren paid Cancellara to win? Do you think Gilbert paid Rodriguez twice and the Schlecks in order to win his classics? I very much doubt it.

Agreements will always be made on the road, but stuff like with Vino/Kolobnev? I doubt it...

 

[roundabout]

The same could be said for doping up until the mid-1980's or so.

Not that American Football has anything to do with this but can anyone imagine a receiver paying off a defensive back to let him catch the game winning TD?? (Let's say in the play-offs or something significant).

Is it any wonder why Kolobnev was wondering if his balls were going to get cut off?

My guess is that Tchmil would have been first in line for the ball cutting.

As for the payment, there is a certain irony that the most glorified (or at least a rider with the most sycophantic thread about him) rider is found to "loan" money to his breakaway companion.

No surprise that the biggest cheerleader now is in full spin mode pretending that Kolobnev was going to stiff Vino and the win was fair and square.

can't be good for the "hero" status of Vino

 

[Cobblestoned]

This thread reads like Joe Papp telling the kids that Santa Claus isn't real.
Pappman, how can you do something like this ? I mean....it's Christmas time.
You are so cruel, Joe.

@Vino@astana.kaz
I neet money. You neet win. No problem. Problem only race. Neet fitness.

 

[Anonymous]

Based on everything I know about pro sport, yes, it's EXACTLY what sport is.

While it's one thing to be offended by doping, the degree to which some people seem offended and hurt by the reality of pro cycling makes me wonder 1) why you even follow it and 2) how you make it through your day without completely collapsing in the face of ... reality.

Not even the clergy of the Catholic Church could succeed in living the virtuous, pure, and moral lives supposedly prescribed by their faith. And yet you all seem to hold cycling to this impossibly high, fantastical, unrealistic moral standard that allows you to act righteously indignant when the players don't meet your expectations.

When you finish watching a movie do you flip out and curse the studios when you realize it wasn't real-life you just spent 90min being distracted by?

So you are a big WWF fan? You certainly have most the prerequisites.

I happen to be passionate about cycling likely for different reasons than you. Somehow I manage to go on even though the sport is not pure as the driven snow.

You mentioned up thread about someone getting a nose-bleed from being on their high horse. You maybe?

No one is disputing that pro cycling is a form of entertainment. I don't worship any of these guys. But you are reasonably diluted and very cynical if, with a straight face, you believe what you write above.

Forgive me if I take exception to a guy paying another guy to throw a prestigious race. Maybe it happens everyday but I don't have to like it, defend it or accept it without complaint. Same for dope.

If Vino The Great Champion gets some heat for this episode (if true) than things are as they should be.

 

[hrotha]

Based on everything I know about pro sport, yes, it's EXACTLY what sport is.

While it's one thing to be offended by doping, the degree to which some people seem offended and hurt by the reality of pro cycling makes me wonder 1) why you even follow it and 2) how you make it through your day without completely collapsing in the face of ... reality.

Not even the clergy of the Catholic Church could succeed in living the virtuous, pure, and moral lives supposedly prescribed by their faith. And yet you all seem to hold cycling to this impossibly high, fantastical, unrealistic moral standard that allows you to act righteously indignant when the players don't meet your expectations.

When you finish watching a movie do you flip out and curse the studios when you realize it wasn't real-life you just spent 90min being distracted by?

Again, all of that applies to doping, word for word. Especially the "why do you even follow it" line - a classic of doping advocates.