Why not confidis?

Because Cofidid is a French team and because it's a very
slippery slope given how fast the doping revelations are
surfacing. If LeBlanc isn't careful, he'll only have one
clean team racing come July, USPS/Dingleberry.

"Simon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So Kelme have been 'dropped' from this years tour, through
the tales of Manzano.

So why not Confidis, because of Gaumonts revelations?

Is it a French thing? Or a matter of divisions?

--
Regards

Simon www.simonpaddon.com simonpaddon.blogspot.comsimonpaddon.blogspot.comOpen ↗
coast-coast.infocoast-coast.infoOpen ↗

'Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue'

bl-<< If LeBlanc isn't careful, he'll only have one clean
team racing come July, USPS >><BR><BR>

Right....and they are sponsored by Disney...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Cofidis (a division 1 team with two current World Champions)
was not a (potential) wildcard like Kelme (a division 2
team). Cofidis was one of the top 10 UCI rated teams in
2003, so according to the pre-announced selection criteria,
they had a spot. No other factors to be considered.

Kelme was trying for a wildcard spot. Unless I missed it,
they were being considered, but had not been officially
invited. This nastiness tipped the scales against them. Too
bad for Valverde 🙁

I think the announcement that Kelme would not be invited to
ANY ASO race was a mistake.

Simon said:

So Kelme have been 'dropped' from this years tour, through
the tales of Manzano.

So why not Confidis, because of Gaumonts revelations?

Is it a French thing? Or a matter of divisions?

Quoted message said:

Kelme was trying for a wildcard spot.

Not only were they after wildcard but they were being
offered the "special" 22 spot. I also refuse to believe that
politics didn't play a role.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Because Cofidid is a French team and because it's a very
slippery slope given how fast the doping revelations are
surfacing. If LeBlanc isn't careful, he'll only have one
clean team racing come July,

USPS/Dingleberry.

Another example of Brian not saying that everyone is doping.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JR-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Because Cofidid is a French team and because it's a very
slippery slope given how fast the doping revelations are
surfacing. If LeBlanc isn't careful, he'll only have one
clean team racing come July,

USPS/Dingleberry.

Another example of Brian not saying that everyone is
doping.

If you were to exclude from the Tour any team with a rider
who had actually tested positive in the past, there would
have been at least 9 fewer teams in the 2003 Tour. This is
based on just a quick perusal of the 2003 startlist. Those
excluded teams would be: Once Telecom Cofidis Saeco Fassa
Bortolo Quick.Step Bianchi Ag2R Vini Caldirola Kelme (makes
10 based on Manzano's statements)

There may be others found by doing a closer inspection. If
you assume that positive tests represent the tip of the
doping iceberg, Mr. Leblanc might have trouble fielding a
Tour if the doping-ethics clause of the Tour is too
strictly applied.

You probably missed some teams especially if you hold them
responsible for hiring those that have doped in the past.

"Roubaix" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Because Cofidid is a French team and because it's a
very slippery

slope

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

given how fast the doping revelations are surfacing.
If LeBlanc isn't careful, he'll only have one clean
team racing come July,

USPS/Dingleberry.

Another example of Brian not saying that everyone is
doping.

If you were to exclude from the Tour any team with a
rider who had

actually

Quoted message said:

tested positive in the past, there would have been at
least 9 fewer teams

in

Quoted message said:

the 2003 Tour. This is based on just a quick perusal of
the 2003

startlist.

Quoted message said:

Those excluded teams would be: Once Telecom Cofidis Saeco
Fassa Bortolo Quick.Step Bianchi Ag2R Vini Caldirola Kelme
(makes 10 based on Manzano's statements)

There may be others found by doing a closer inspection. If
you assume

that

Quoted message said:

positive tests represent the tip of the doping iceberg,
Mr. Leblanc might have trouble fielding a Tour if the doping-
ethics clause of the Tour is

too

Quoted message said:

strictly applied.

Postal booted one of their lesser known riders last year
(or perhaps 2 years ago) when he tested positive (perhaps
with an internal test). So ghat would make 11...Does it
count if USPS simply took care of biz before it became a
race test scandal?

"Roubaix" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<QPX9c.4-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Because Cofidid is a French team and because it's a
very slippery slope given how fast the doping
revelations are surfacing. If LeBlanc isn't careful,
he'll only have one clean team racing come July,

USPS/Dingleberry.

Another example of Brian not saying that everyone is
doping.

If you were to exclude from the Tour any team with a rider
who had actually tested positive in the past, there would
have been at least 9 fewer teams in the 2003 Tour. This is
based on just a quick perusal of the 2003 startlist. Those
excluded teams would be: Once Telecom Cofidis Saeco Fassa
Bortolo Quick.Step Bianchi Ag2R Vini Caldirola Kelme
(makes 10 based on Manzano's statements)

There may be others found by doing a closer inspection. If
you assume that positive tests represent the tip of the
doping iceberg, Mr. Leblanc might have trouble fielding a
Tour if the doping-ethics clause of the Tour is too
strictly applied.