Vino bought the 2010 LBL?

[Ryo Hazuki]

What pistolera said. There is no proof of any wrong doing in any of those cases. Yet there is in the Vino case. Paying someone to lose a race like the emails indicate is not something that we should turn a blind eye towards. When there is proof of it then something should be done about it. Making the sport cleaner should be the top priority, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to stop riders from buying races as well. I see buying a race as just another form of doping.

don't worrie. nothing will happen and vino will keep his win. aso knows cycling unlike most of you here and isn't it hilarious that from all the padua hype, this is all they got? I guess I should go back to the clinic again to laugh at some people.

also about uran. uran makes 700.000 euros a year in sky. you think vino paid him anythign near that to lose gold? please explain why vino offered only a pitiful 150.000 for winning lbl. kolobnev made far more than that in a years salary

 

[El Pistolero]

Because Kolobnev probably blasts away his money buying TUEs and medication. Kolobnev is a small fish anyway.

 

[Descender]

150,000 is 25% of 600,000.

Suppose a guy makes 40,000 a year, an average salary in northern Europe. Are you telling me a bribe of 10,000 euros for doing something like losing on purpose isn't going to be convincing?

 

[Netserk]

150,000 is 25% of 600,000.

Suppose a guy makes 40,000 a year, an average salary in northern Europe. Are you telling me a bribe of 10,000 euros for doing something like losing on purpose isn't going to be convincing?

I would guess that he makes more than 600,000 annually, but the real point isn't how much he makes annually, but how much *more* he could make with a win in L-B-L. I would guess that that win would be worth more than 150,000 €.

 

[Afrank]

:facepalm: that what I meant. you are clueless. it is not about making the other rider work with you. but having something in return in case of losing the race. that deal is as old as cycling itself

Let's not resort to facepalms and insults, you didn't make that clear in your last post. A deal like the one you describe does make sense, the only problem is the emails don't really read like this was the deal. Vino saying you did the right thing for example sounds like it was more a deal to buy the race then a compensation for Kolobnevs work deal. If these kind of things happen as much as you say then I don't know why Vino would have to reassure him that he did the right thing.

don't worrie. nothing will happen and vino will keep his win. aso knows cycling unlike most of you here and isn't it hilarious that from all the padua hype, this is all they got? I guess I should go back to the clinic again to laugh at some people.

also about uran. uran makes 700.000 euros a year in sky. you think vino paid him anythign near that to lose gold? please explain why vino offered only a pitiful 150.000 for winning lbl. kolobnev made far more than that in a years salary

When did I say anything about Uran? As far as I know there isn't any proof that Vino payed Uran. Or did you just quote the wrong post?

 

[Pentacycle]

I would guess that he makes more than 600,000 annually, but the real point isn't how much he makes annually, but how much *more* he could make with a win in L-B-L. I would guess that that win would be worth more than 150,000 €.

His salary would've still been the same, and the prize money isn't all that big too. What if he'd obviously lost instead of acting like he was hurting on the final climb? That way it would't have mattered if he got any money for the loss, because everyone could see it was a fraud.

Maybe Contador will receive another ban for gifting the Tourmalet stage to Schleck, while that was only for friendship's sake.

Point is, it doesn't matter if a race is won in a fair way, what counts is the quality of racing and the excitement of watching the race live, not reviewing it over and over afterwards.

 

[Descender]

His salary would've still been the same, and the prize money isn't all that big too. What if he'd obviously lost instead of acting like he was hurting on the final climb? That way it would't have mattered if he got any money for the loss, because everyone could see it was a fraud.

Maybe Contador will receive another ban for gifting the Tourmalet stage to Schleck, while that was only for friendship's sake.

Point is, it doesn't matter if a race is won in a fair way, what counts is the quality of racing and the excitement of watching the race live, not reviewing it over and over afterwards.

And then we wonder why cycling has such a bad image...

 

[Dutchsmurf]

What pistolera said. There is no proof of any wrong doing in any of those cases. Yet there is in the Vino case. Paying someone to lose a race like the emails indicate is not something that we should turn a blind eye towards. When there is proof of it then something should be done about it. Making the sport cleaner should be the top priority, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to stop riders from buying races as well. I see buying a race as just another form of doping.

Keyword here is "indicate". If you are going to take action because something "indicates" paying for a win, all my other examples come into play too. There is no proof, just an indication. Uran's strange move is just as much indication to me as Kolobnev's email.
In the history of cycling there have been tons of examples of people losing on purpose. It never was a problem before. Why is it suddenly a problem now? And if it is a problem, where do you draw the line? Only if money is involved? Is handing you the win today so you help me tomorrow okay or not? What about dividing the prices, I mean that is matchfixing too. I take yellow, you take the stage. I take the mountain points, you take the sprints for green. You are a good friend, so I make you win today. I was a bit unsportive yesterday, so you can take the stage today. I have to keep my teammate happy, so I will let him win the sprint.

 

[El Pistolero]

He paid someone that wasn't his team-mate to lose on purpose. What's so hard to get about that? The proof are the e-mails and the money transactions.

 

[Afrank]

Keyword here is "indicate". If you are going to take action because something "indicates" paying for a win, all my other examples come into play too. There is no proof, just an indication. Uran's strange move is just as much indication to me as Kolobnev's email.
In the history of cycling there have been tons of examples of people losing on purpose. It never was a problem before. Why is it suddenly a problem now? And if it is a problem, where do you draw the line? Only if money is involved? Is handing you the win today so you help me tomorrow okay or not? What about dividing the prices, I mean that is matchfixing too. I take yellow, you take the stage. I take the mountain points, you take the sprints for green. You are a good friend, so I make you win today. I was a bit unsportive yesterday, so you can take the stage today. I have to keep my teammate happy, so I will let him win the sprint.

The bank transactions prove that money did exchange hands, and the words in the emails "indicate" that the money is likely to have been for Kolobnev to purposefully lose the race. And the emails are a much larger indication of wrongdoing then looking the wrong way in a sprint, looking the wrong way in a sprint is a mistake. It doesn't prove anything.

There is nothing wrong with the examples you described because they are part of the strategy's of cycling. But paying a guy to lose a race is in no way a strategy. And it gives the impression that as long as you can hang with the top guys at the front of the race and have enough money, you can just pay them for the win. No matter what you say it is a form of cheating, because just like doping it is giving one rider a unfair advantage. I personally want to see both riders both going for the win, I want to see a fair race. And if one rider can pay the other for the victory, then it is not a fair race at all.

Edit: Looks like a few more details from the emails have emerged, sites are now reporting this line in addition to others in Kolobnev's email.

If it had been someone else in your place there, I would have gone for the win, glory and bonus

 

[cineteq]

There is no proof, just an indication. Uran's strange move is just as much indication to me as Kolobnev's email.

Oh wait, didn't Uran move this year to Monaco?

 

[Descender]

Well done UCI!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-investigate-vinokourovs-liege-bastogne-liege-victory

 

[cineteq]

Well done UCI!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-investigate-vinokourovs-liege-bastogne-liege-victory

 

[cineteq]

Vinokourov, when asked following his Liège win about its significance after his doping ban, refused to discuss details of his doping past, telling reporters, "It’s proof you can win without doping."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ourov-to-win-2010-liege-bastogne-liege_264011

Yeah Vino, but it's also a proof that you cheat no matter what.

 

[Descender]

That's not what he told reporters. They misheard his words. I was there, and what he said was "it's proof that you can cheat without doping".

 

[cineteq]

"If Vinokourov and Kolobnev were to be proven guilty the license commission would re-evaluate the world tour licenses of the Astana and Katusha teams."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...urce=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=255506

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Let's not resort to facepalms and insults, you didn't make that clear in your last post. A deal like the one you describe does make sense, the only problem is the emails don't really read like this was the deal. Vino saying you did the right thing for example sounds like it was more a deal to buy the race then a compensation for Kolobnevs work deal. If these kind of things happen as much as you say then I don't know why Vino would have to reassure him that he did the right thing.



When did I say anything about Uran? As far as I know there isn't any proof that Vino payed Uran. Or did you just quote the wrong post?

about uran I was telling in general and the emails proove nothing,other than that vino paid kolobnev. I hope they aren't checking any other riders bank accounts because it happens all the time. situations far worse like boogerd being allowed to win the nationals from langeveld in return of a pro contract for him with rabo. I never hear anything about that, that was blatant

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

He paid someone that wasn't his team-mate to lose on purpose. What's so hard to get about that? The proof are the e-mails and the money transactions.

yeah and the proove for that is where?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Oh wait, didn't Uran move this year to Monaco?

no

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

"If Vinokourov and Kolobnev were to be proven guilty the license commission would re-evaluate the world tour licenses of the Astana and Katusha teams."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...urce=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=255506

it won't happen though. every judge would laugh this case out of court if it ever went that far. uci are simply saying they investigate everything because they are in much tighter shoes right now

 

[Afrank]

about uran I was telling in general and the emails proove nothing,other than that vino paid kolobnev. I hope they aren't checking any other riders bank accounts because it happens all the time. situations far worse like boogerd being allowed to win the nationals from langeveld in return of a pro contract for him with rabo. I never hear anything about that, that was blatant

I think the emails prove something. In the bolded below, he pretty much says he didn't go for the win, so what can we assume other than he gave the race to vino for the money.

"Remember that for me it was a great chance. I do not know if I was right to do what I did. Not so much because of our agreement, but mostly because of my feelings towards you and towards your situation. Even my wife was not too bothered by the fact that I was second, because you were the first. If it had been someone else in your place there, I would have gone for the win, glory and bonus (I have this in my contract for the classics). That day I felt stronger than ever.

"Now it only remains for me to wait patiently to see if all this was not vain. Here is a copy of all my bank details; clear this from your mail box or I risk having my balls cut off. [BSI Locarno bank details follow. - ed.]: Let me know, I'll check the operation and that everything went well. Good luck in the Giro!"

 

[Descender]

I think the emails prove something. In the bolded below, he pretty much says he didn't go for the win, so what can we assume other than he gave the race to vino for the money.

Forget it, it's useless.

There's none more blind than he who doesn't want to see.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Vino, the clown, will fit very nicely in the role of a DS yelling orders from the car behind the bunch.

There is nothing a box of Red or Whiskey can't handle.

 

[JA.Tri]

UCI had opportunity to investigate this matter, when details were first revealed, ages ago. Action then would have bolstered UCI's crumbling credibility. UCI action now only reinforces the public perception of a corrupt, knee jerk activated, old boys' club.

I acknowledge concerns raised that trading wins for favours is part of the game. However, on such matters, the UCI et al need to investigate/make determinations. And where necessary, enhance policy/guidelines/rules. These actions will create a clear indication of the expectations associated with free and fair competition and importantly, the circumstances of exception.

The potholes this sport creates are enormous and some verge on being black holes. The more transparent/precise these rules/regs are, the better for all stakeholders. Perhaps something like the etiquette of golf is worthy of consideration.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

uci have said to have received documents but it's not enough proove for juridical action as I predicted here. so goodbye everyone