Arsewipe Armstrong confirms he's riding the Tour.

[jhuskey]

How much money will be made in future ventures in Contador wins?
How much money will be made if Armstrong wins?
A few future scenarios to be considered but figure this out and you have your favorite boy.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Riis has to up the ante now.... get a full program going in the team otherwise CSC won't compete. It will 2005 all over again.

 

[limerickman]

How much money will be made in future ventures in Contador wins?
How much money will be made if Armstrong wins?
A few future scenarios to be considered but figure this out and you have your favorite boy.

The cost of letting that tainted generation of cyclists back in to the sport, outweighs existing and, possibly, any future benefits.
That generation of cyclists cannot be reformed.
It's in their DNA to dope.

The conundrum here is "what benefits derive from allowing them back".
One benefit might be higher TV viewing numbers in the US.
Maybe some increase in bike sales in the US too.
Do those benefits outweigh the risk to race organiser/sponsors of having their events associated with doping scandals?
Do those benefits outweigh the costs to others teams who may be, perhaps innocently, associated with a sporting event rife with doping allegations?

Some at the UCI have a view that the sport has been mortally wounded and that the sport needs to put as much distance between it and it's past.
Although I'm also told that others at the UCI believe that their reintroduction would be a good thing.
Time will tell who prevails.

 

[jhuskey]

The cost of letting that tainted generation of cyclists back in to the sport, outweighs existing and, possibly, any future benefits.
That generation of cyclists cannot be reformed.
It's in their DNA to dope.

The conundrum here is "what benefits derive from allowing them back".
One benefit might be higher TV viewing numbers in the US.
Maybe some increase in bike sales in the US too.
Do those benefits outweigh the risk to race organiser/sponsors of having their events associated with doping scandals?
Do those benefits outweigh the costs to others teams who may be, perhaps innocently, associated with a sporting event rife with doping allegations?

Some at the UCI have a view that the sport has been mortally wounded and that the sport needs to put as much distance between it and it's past.
Although I'm also told that others at the UCI believe that their reintroduction would be a good thing.
Time will tell who prevails.

It is a struggle between several factions but it has been my experience that the big money wins.

 

[whiteboytrash]

We know the UCI's stance after refusing to re-test the Giro samples for CERA.

Problem being is that the police and media see this differently. Imagine how cycling would suffer if another Fuentes styled blood-ring was uncovered. It would be a lot worse than 2 or 3 more positives at next years Tour.

The cost of letting that tainted generation of cyclists back in to the sport, outweighs existing and, possibly, any future benefits.
That generation of cyclists cannot be reformed.
It's in their DNA to dope.

The conundrum here is "what benefits derive from allowing them back".
One benefit might be higher TV viewing numbers in the US.
Maybe some increase in bike sales in the US too.
Do those benefits outweigh the risk to race organiser/sponsors of having their events associated with doping scandals?
Do those benefits outweigh the costs to others teams who may be, perhaps innocently, associated with a sporting event rife with doping allegations?

Some at the UCI have a view that the sport has been mortally wounded and that the sport needs to put as much distance between it and it's past.
Although I'm also told that others at the UCI believe that their reintroduction would be a good thing.
Time will tell who prevails.

 

[poulidor]

Everyone can complain here

A.S.O.
2, rue Rouget de L'Isle
92130 ISSY LES MOULINEAUX

Phone number :
33 (0)1.41.33.14.00

TV Contact :
[email protected]

Press Contact :
[email protected]

I think paper letters from foreign countries will have more impact.

 

[RdBiker]

The cost of letting that tainted generation of cyclists back in to the sport, outweighs existing and, possibly, any future benefits.
That generation of cyclists cannot be reformed.
It's in their DNA to dope.

The conundrum here is "what benefits derive from allowing them back".
One benefit might be higher TV viewing numbers in the US.
Maybe some increase in bike sales in the US too.
Do those benefits outweigh the risk to race organiser/sponsors of having their events associated with doping scandals?
Do those benefits outweigh the costs to others teams who may be, perhaps innocently, associated with a sporting event rife with doping allegations?

Some at the UCI have a view that the sport has been mortally wounded and that the sport needs to put as much distance between it and it's past.
Although I'm also told that others at the UCI believe that their reintroduction would be a good thing.
Time will tell who prevails.

Well now the question here is that who are the riders who are most likely going to get caught. Face it, that's what the UCI is concerned about. History shows us that they wouldn't be interested in cleaning up the sport if it wasn't for the positives. "No positives - no problem" is the UCI slogan...

So I'm not too surprised that they don't try to stop Armstrong and Basso returning: Lance is famous for not getting caught and I think Basso has learned his lesson (not to get caught I mean, not actually stop doping). The "new generation" is much more at risk being caught that these two riders who know what to do. The latest TdF shows us this.

So maybe there's some bad publicity at the moment but just wait when/if Armstrong wins a 8th Tour - the UCI, ASO and cycling world will be all over him...or at least that's what the organisations are counting on.

 

[Eldron]

The cost of letting that tainted generation of cyclists back in to the sport, outweighs existing and, possibly, any future benefits.
That generation of cyclists cannot be reformed.
It's in their DNA to dope.

The conundrum here is "what benefits derive from allowing them back".
One benefit might be higher TV viewing numbers in the US.
Maybe some increase in bike sales in the US too.
Do those benefits outweigh the risk to race organiser/sponsors of having their events associated with doping scandals?
Do those benefits outweigh the costs to others teams who may be, perhaps innocently, associated with a sporting event rife with doping allegations?

Some at the UCI have a view that the sport has been mortally wounded and that the sport needs to put as much distance between it and it's past.
Although I'm also told that others at the UCI believe that their reintroduction would be a good thing.
Time will tell who prevails.

Lim,

After this year's TdF Cera fiasco there is no old versus new generation - cycling had and currently has a HUGE doping problem. Kohl, Leogrande, Shumacher, Beltran, Ricco, Piepoli were all busted THIS year and represent cycling from rising young stars right through to old dogs - Armstrong is no more or less guilty than any of these guys. Actually less guilty in the eyes of UCI/WADA/ASO etc because they actually haven't prosecuted him for anything.

Why prevent an innocent (strictly legally speaking only!) Armstrong from competing on the pretence that he will corrupt the youth? The youth are dirty through and given the busts this year can probably teach Armstrong a thing or two about modern EPO use....

Edit: scratch that last comment - if they're getting busted they should probably ask Lance for some tips

 

[poulidor]

Lim,
After this year's TdF Cera fiasco there is no old versus new generation - cycling had and currently has a HUGE doping problem. Kohl, Leogrande, Shumacher, Beltran, Ricco, Piepoli were all busted THIS year and represent cycling from rising young stars right through to old dogs - Armstrong is no more or less guilty than any of these guys. Actually less guilty in the eyes of UCI/WADA/ASO etc because they actually haven't prosecuted him for anything.

Why prevent an innocent (strictly legally speaking only!) Armstrong from competing on the pretence that he will corrupt the youth? The youth are dirty through and given the busts this year can probably teach Armstrong a thing or two about modern EPO use....

Edit: scratch that last comment - if they're getting busted they should probably ask Lance for some tips

There is no fiasco that year because when you search you find more. More cases but a peloton who rode slower. That is a clear improvement.

Legaly speaking, TDF can invite who they want, so they can refuse to invite Armstrong.
By letting him entry they give a very bad example.

 

[Eldron]

There is no fiasco that year because when you search you find more. More cases but a peloton who rode slower. That is a clear improvement.

Legaly speaking, TDF can invite who they want, so they can refuse to invite Armstrong.
By letting him entry they give a very bad example.

2008 was no fiasco? In that case there is no problem here - cycling is clean!!!

Riding slower = less drug taking? There is no way I agree with that. Extensive testing with no positives = less drug taking and 2008 picked up many positives - therefor drug taking is still a problem (even without Lance's bad example).

I'm all for one rule for everyone - if the TdF don't invite Lance then Riis' team shouldn't be allowed to ride, Basso and his team can't ride, Astana can't ride, Slipstream can't ride etc etc.

Any how - it's not up to me or you to decide. July 2009 will reveal all!!!

 

[DV1976]

2008 was no fiasco? In that case there is no problem here - cycling is clean!!!

Riding slower = less drug taking? There is no way I agree with that. Extensive testing with no positives = less drug taking and 2008 picked up many positives - therefor drug taking is still a problem (even without Lance's bad example).

I'm all for one rule for everyone - if the TdF don't invite Lance then Riis' team shouldn't be allowed to ride, Basso and his team can't ride, Astana can't ride, Slipstream can't ride etc etc.

Any how - it's not up to me or you to decide. July 2009 will reveal all!!!

The right thing to do in this case is to exclude riders no teams.
Basso cant ride, Lance cant anyone who has been caught doping cant ride not their teams. It's unfair. As for CSC I really dont see why they shouldnt ride.

 

[Eldron]

The right thing to do in this case is to exclude riders no teams.
Basso cant ride, Lance cant anyone who has been caught doping cant ride not their teams. It's unfair. As for CSC I really dont see why they shouldnt ride.

I don't see the fairness - Basso is a legally santioned drug cheat - Armstrong is not - why can't he ride?

If we excluded all the riders that have rumoured to have doped the 2009 TdF would have about 3 riders...

 

[poulidor]

I don't see the fairness - Basso is a legally santioned drug cheat - Armstrong is not - why can't he ride?

If we excluded all the riders that have rumoured to have doped the 2009 TdF would have about 3 riders...

Where is the fairness to have a liar and dopers to make a lot of money when honest people who deserve it don't receive a small part of it.

If you want to complain about fairness you have to be more ambitious.

 

[DV1976]

I don't see the fairness - Basso is a legally santioned drug cheat - Armstrong is not - why can't he ride?

If we excluded all the riders that have rumoured to have doped the 2009 TdF would have about 3 riders...

Armstrong is an established drug cheat that had the fortune or the foresight to leave the stage b4 the **** hit the fan. The good thing with being ASO is that they can choose not to stick their heads in the sand (or in their arses) and as the TDF is theirs to do as they please, they can simply say that they dont want him there.

 

[Eldron]

Where is the fairness to have a liar and dopers to make a lot of money when honest people who deserve it don't receive a small part of it.

If you want to complain about fairness you have to be more ambitious.

You've hit the nail on the head - dopers cheat clean riders out of money. Sanctioned dopers should not be allowed to ride. Armstrong is not a sanctioned doper so terefor he gets to ride. If you don't allow him to ride then Slipstream can't ride (ex doped up Telekom plus they have Zabel as sprint coach - a self confessed doper), Saxo Bank can't ride (Riis has admitted to doping), Pettachi (little asthma problem), Di Luca (oil for drugs), Rock Racing (about a million reasons), and on and on and on....

Like I said before if we removed all the rotten smelling riders we'd have none left. I draw the line at the law (however flawed that is) - if you've been banned you don't ride. If they haven't caught you (yet!) then you get to ride.

 

[poulidor]

You are confussing fairness and laws.

Most of criminals are not in jail because the Justice was not able to catch them. That is unfair.

Lance is a doped rider there is a lot of clues and evidences against him.
Should I recall you that Lance never sued L'Equipe about his 6 samples despite France has strong (est?) laws against defamation. Barcelona FC did and won against Le Monde about Fuentes' affair.

So it's fair to exclude a rider like Lance.

 

[RdBiker]

You've hit the nail on the head - dopers cheat clean riders out of money. Sanctioned dopers should not be allowed to ride. Armstrong is not a sanctioned doper so terefor he gets to ride. If you don't allow him to ride then Slipstream can't ride (ex doped up Telekom plus they have Zabel as sprint coach - a self confessed doper), Saxo Bank can't ride (Riis has admitted to doping), Pettachi (little asthma problem), Di Luca (oil for drugs), Rock Racing (about a million reasons), and on and on and on....

Like I said before if we removed all the rotten smelling riders we'd have none left. I draw the line at the law (however flawed that is) - if you've been banned you don't ride. If they haven't caught you (yet!) then you get to ride.

Spot on. If we just looked up the guys who were suspected in the Puerto case, we'd lose a few others (Valverde as the biggest star). Any one can start a rumour saying "this and that rider dopes" so should we also ban everyone who has been suspected of doping - we'd have no one at the TdF start next year...
In all fairness I can't see why the French people, as much as I like them and their country, should be allowed to dictate who competes in their races. I can't understand why for example Basso should be any more welcome than Armstrong - both have lied and both have very probably used PEDs. Everyone should play by the rules or then do their everything to change them if they see something wrong there.

 

[RdBiker]

You are confussing fairness and laws.

Most of criminals are not in jail because the Justice was not able to catch them. That is unfair.

Lance is a doped rider there is a lot of clues and evidences against him.
Should I recall you that Lance never sued L'Equipe about his 6 samples despite France has strong (est?) laws against defamation. Barcelona FC did and won against Le Monde about Fuentes' affair.

So it's fair to exclude a rider like Lance.

It's fair only if you exclude all the riders who are in a similar situation. And I bet that there are millions of situations where the person was strongly suspected but was actually innocent. Hell, there are people executed in the US who are later found innocent...
So we just can't (or shouldn't) ban cyclists just because they are suspected. No matter how much we suspect Lance we can't ban him before he tests positive or is otherwise found 100% to have doped (the 6 EPO positives would've been good if they would've stood in court).

 

[Eldron]

You are confussing fairness and laws.

Most of criminals are not in jail because the Justice was not able to catch them. That is unfair.

Lance is a doped rider there is a lot of clues and evidences against him.
Should I recall you that Lance never sued L'Equipe about his 6 samples despite France has strong (est?) laws against defamation. Barcelona FC did and won against Le Monde about Fuentes' affair.

So it's fair to exclude a rider like Lance.

Once you start excluding riders that haven't been officially sanctioned then the whole system becomes and uncontrollable grey area.

David Millar. Drug cheat. Why can he ride?
Rasmussen?
Basso?
Floyd Landis?
Erik Zabel? Ok he's retired.
Tom Boonen?
Ale Jet?Di Luca?
The list of non sanctioned, semi sanctioned fully sanctioned cheaters is long.

When you move from firm rules to gut feel and emotion there is no way you can make consistent and repeatable decisions.

In your case though it seems to be just Armstrong...

 

[K'Ching]

I can't understand why for example Basso should be any more welcome than Armstrong - both have lied and both have very probably used PEDs. Everyone should play by the rules or then do their everything to change them if they see something wrong there.

Basso doped, got caught, served his sentence and is now back. Armstrong has doped and gotten away with it, even though there is tons of circumstantial evidence against him.

Remember when Rasmussen was taken out of the tour? He hadn't actually been caught doping. He actually hadn't even officially broken any rules that could legally keep him from riding, yet he was told he'd never be welcomed back to the tour, based only, at that time, on the circumstantial evidence against him.

How do you see Armstrongs situation as being different from Rasmussens?