Vuelta: No Red Meat!
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 9:57 AM EDT
in News
Email
PrintScott-American Beef, the inheritor of Saunier Duval, is inheriting its reputation as well, and has been excluded from riding the Vuelta a Espana. DS Joxean Fernandez is pleading his case to the media, pointing out how Ricco says he acted alone, how Piepoli was jettisoned as well, and -- a thornier one -- how Liquigas and Credit Agricole are still invited to the race, despite having riders sent home for doping at the Tour.
Honestly, this is a pretty terrible decision by the Vuelta. Taken together with the Astana case, there seems to be a standard that your team is subject to stronger punishment depending on who the doper is. If it's a domestique, slap on the wrist; if it's a team leader, expulsion. Hell, Fofonov wasn't exactly a nobody, so even there Unipublic's decision seems inconsistent. Add in that the team is Spanish, and presumably new sponsor American Beef had designs on showing its brand in Spain, and this is a pretty severe blow.
Question: would this be happening if ASO hadn't just purchased a nearly 50% interest in the Vuelta? Of course not. ASO have good judgment about some things, but as we've seen another of their special powers is petty vindictiveness. (Ask Buryneel.) Despite changing sponsors and firing the guilty parties, ASO need to lash out once more at... what? the uniform? as revenge for the Ricco incident at the Tour. Victor Cordero isn't quoted in the CN article, so the stated reasons, whether it's final, etc.... still forthcoming. Stay tuned.
31 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can see that
there might be concern about having a team pull out part way through the event, but to penalize this one team and not the others who had confirmed dopers in their ranks doesn’t make sense, not as a penalty for doping. As with the Astana case (and I am no fan of Bruyneel), how are decisions made about which teams to single out for extra “punishment”? Whatever the behind-the-scenes machinations are, these race organizers really need to get it together and sort out a proper, consistent approach. The problem will not be solved by singling out and making examples of teams in this way, and those riders who are clean will ultimately be the ones paying the price, along with their sponsors.
I'm ambivalent about this
I generally support the idea of making the teams more accountable for the actions of their riders, and I can see how the ASO may feel especially burned by Saunier Duval. But this ends up having a significant impact on two sponsors who stepped up to help keep a lot of riders and support staff employed, and I hate to see them bearing the punishment (although I’m sure they realized this was a possibility when they either signed on or increased their sponsorship).
Perhaps
therein lies the… whatever. How responsible was the team? SDV had no priors and Ricco says it was an individual thing. Also, the team is in Spain, and Ricco in Italy, where he saw Santuccione. It’s hard to really know, but I don’t see team fingerprints here.
Astana, I think there’s at least some suspicion aimed at Bruyneel by ASO, however unfounded.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I usually agree with your opinions on these matters but....
SDV has a major prior in Mayo.
Riders always say it’s an individual thing
- I don’t see what changing sponsors has to do with anything, surely the birdpeople weren’t the guilty party?
The one valid argument is the weird inclusion of LiQ and CA but here’s the deal: without the ProTour, raceorganizers can do whatever the hell they want. If tomorrow they don’t like the shinyness of Bjarne’s bald head, CSC are out. If the teams had a problem with this (as I do) they should have backed the UCI back in the day. Now they can whine all they want, it’s not going to change anything.
Carlos Sastre - Tour de France winner - Born From Jets
OK
they had a prior. Good catch. Also, Riis’ head is too shiny. And yep, the teams should’ve done something to band together.
Beyond that, I’ll stick by my disapproval. They’re no different than the others, and it’s not cool to be screwing over new sponsors.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
But should we reward sponsors who back shady teams?
Apart from the fact that every new sponsor in cycling is a good thing and we feel for mechanics and staff that would otherwise be looking for new work.
Isn’t there something to be said for finacially penalizing managers who don’t make a big enough effort to clean up the image of cycling?
If Scott and/or American Beef had said “we’ll pay up, but only if x € goes to establishing a credible antidoping-program” I’d be more impressed.
Carlos Sastre - Tour de France winner - Born From Jets
Hm
OK. Yet another good idea that would probably get implemented if the sport had even a semblance of structure to it.
But—if a robust internal controls program is the requirement, I have a few concerns. First, not everyone can afford it, so requiring it is an unfunded mandate. Not totally realistic. Secondly, a team program can only be a part of it; obviously they’re only going to be as effective as the team wants them to be.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Well... that's when the rider's union will step in...
... and work to provide revenue sharing among the tea… ... ... oh wait… that’s right…
I know, it said "als" instead of "ist"... don't give me any crap...
Ahh unfunded mandate, makes me want to dig up my "West Wing" DVDs
Since the ProTour is “resting” (Pat McQuaid = Michael Palin) the big teams don’t need to employ 28-30 riders as before. That frees up some cash, for a lot of teams anyway.
Carlos Sastre - Tour de France winner - Born From Jets
yeah
not all unfunded mandates are bad. But as tort lawyers say, you can’t get blood from a turnip.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
well, that
depends how you use the turnip, I think.
Tort lawyers can be surprisingly uncreative, sometimes.
I should also have mentioned...
support staff.
I also agree about making teams accountable – I wonder how else that could be done. I’m a skeptic when it comes to managers proclaiming their lack of knowledge and innocence, but when a decision is made to eliminate an entire team, I think they need better evidence.
Who hasn't had a desire...
... to link to this ever since the new sponsor was announced.?
I know, it said "als" instead of "ist"... don't give me any crap...
Well
it makes sense now, at least.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
one more doubt decision
this decision is nothing consistent. The Aso says that Astana was suspended because don’t want to abandone the Tour freely last year (comparing with Cofidis non suspencion) but Scott seems give up freely this year!
But yeah, the criterium is the dopper guys like you say…
i hope for a Benfica’s invite…(i bet not)
I think this is all much more simple then what you guys are focusing on.
Basically, its’ their party, and they’ll invite whomever they want to invite. None of the GT associations has ever liked being told who they can, and cannot invite to their event.
We all know the ASO leads the way, and has done so by excluding Astana this year.
I think those at the Vuelta are simply following along with the opportunity of displaying their authority.
Call it a monopoly, call it unfair, but that is just the way it is.
I think them cowboys aught to just be darn happy they have a job and they need to show just a little gratitude for being allowed to show up at any race that will allow them.
Besides, they just lost their key riders, and there are now Conti teams that are basically as good as them anyway.
Why not let a smaller team get a call up to a GT?
I bet it’ll turn out just fine.
pretty much
But I don’t like it. The teams are more important to me than the GT brands.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
That can, and has been debated.
In the end, teams come and go and their are more teams then major races, so by that the promoters of the GT’s can do whatever they feel will create the best event.
I guess I would have more sympathy in this decision if the Cowboys were gonna’ be more then pack filler in this years Vuelta.
But that is really all they are gonna’ be.
This a necessary step
to ultimately force all teams to adopt internal testing programs. No testing program, a rider gets popped, and the team is on the sidelines. Done deal, and it’s all rather straightforward. With the current situation in cycling, I can’t understand how any sponsor can possibly risk missing any of the marquee events, especially any of the GTs. Yes, the organizers should adopt some clear cut guidelines for invites to their races, but the sponsors and management really had better start placing internal anti-doping measures front and center. Maybe this should be a requirement of the “new league” being formed…
OK
then exclude Liquigas and Credit Ag too.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep,
I’ve got no problems with those two out either, especially Liquigas. I’d feel bad for Cofidis, but I believe my solution is the only way forward.
by The Team Chef on Aug 7, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
OK by me
Part of my problem with the ASO/Unipublic method is the lack of standards. Just say what the rules are: one positive and your team is uninvited. Say something. Then apply it to everyone. Instead, we get ad-hoc nonsense, which makes them look arbitrary and hypocritical.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 8, 2008 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I am with you.
If the organizers issued a one strike and you are out rule (again, assuming there in no testing done within the team), they could simply create a little loophole for a future invite by allowing the team to participate if they instiute an internal testing after the single positive. Problem solved – the team gets an invite, the sponsor is happy, the sport is a that much closer to getting itself clean(er), and the organizer avoids the black eye of a Ricco situation.
I still can’t beleive a team like Rabbo, in spite of Chicken and the cloud cast by the Austrian clinic accusations against some of their other stars, does not implement some kind of program for their cyclists; they are one scandal (positive) away from getting blackballed next year. Maybe everyone was banking on the Bio Passport solving all the doping problems…
by The Team Chef on Aug 8, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
This is as bad a place as any...........
Mumblings of a fifth positive from the Tour. Our old friend Mr Steroids….......
Carlos Sastre - Tour de France winner - Born From Jets
It's an odd thing
but since they got Ricco and Sella I actually see positives as a good thing. An awful lot of riders genuinely seem to be clean. After all there wasn’t a great rush of abandons when they announced that they had caught Ricco and by the way also had a working test for CERA. I see it as showing the clean riders that you genuinely are on their side.
Although 76 TUEs does seem a bit much.
Gotta love the Babelfish...
The AFLD also detected with 4 recoveries the presence of EPO at three runners: the Spaniards Handbook Beltran and Moises Duenas
I know, it said "als" instead of "ist"... don't give me any crap...
Frickin Handbook
that guy always seemed shady to me. But very helpful!
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Corticoid
So maybe it’s a cream? Maybe it’ll be an injury thing, not an out-and-out cheating effort? Stay tuned.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 7, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Chris you ask
“would this be happening if ASO hadn’t just purchased a nearly 50% interest in the Vuelta?”. It might well be. Astana were uninvited last year before ASO got involved – and similar to this year; other problem teams like Rabobank, T-mobile were allowed to continue. So I don’t see a difference between what the organisers are doing this year relative to last.
Linky to last years Astana exclusion
http://www.bike-zone.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug13news2
Maybe
Though Astana just had the Vino-Kash double embarassment, a year after they worked poor Valverde to win the Vuelta. Pretty extreme situation. But you’re right, it might be the same to Unipublic. Hopefully they’ll elaborate.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 8, 2008 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
