Cofidis doping again?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by JohnO
http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/5853.0.html

Whether or not this is as serious as it sounds, one bit of irony emerges from the latest trouble:

Hein Verbruggen, president of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) praised the move by Cofidis.

"I respect this decision," he said. "I think Cofidis are showing they are serious in getting the business resolved."

Okay, now how about the UCI getting serious about resolving this business? Isn't that their job?

When a major team like Cofidis has to take itself out of competition, it's a good indicator that the appropriate governing body has dropped the ball. The UCI should have taken action long before that became necessary.

I was talking to a Cofidis rider earlier this year who seemed mighty peeved indeed at the scandal, he mentioned that the press had forgot to tell people the riders involved had "left" Cofidis before any allegations where made.
It is a shame that Cofidis has pulled out, I doubt there riders take any more Drugs than any other teams.

Yet another old post (April 11, 2004) where we now have a clearer picture----one year later.

David Millar, Robert Sassone, Philippe Gaumont, the team drectors---all fired and/or suspended for doping.

They all denied it---at first, then later admitted. The Team still participated in the 2004 TDF, while Team Kelme was uninvited over 'rumors' and so too---with 2005 sensation Danilo DiLuca (formerly of Saeco).

You see how it works. CRIME PAYS! Just watch if DiLuca should win the 2005 Giro. How ironic?

DeLuca was denied his 2004 TDF based on leaked cellphone recordings, but apparently still got his CERA drugs from Roche Pharmaceutical--and went on to win the Tour of Lombardy, and several Classics this spring. Now he is on top of cycling.

Cofidis took off 3 weeks of racing, but kept their sponsor's name in racing for 95% of the season.

Phonak has done the exact same thing. Sack Hamilton, Camenzind, Perez, the team doctor, the director, but keep the LOGO and PRO-Circuit entry. Add Landis and a few new names and continue with doping as usual.

btw: The corrupt Team Cofidis was the squad Lance Armstrong signed with for 1997. He would have been right at home there along with Frank Vandenbrocke.

Is it not obvious how corrupt the system is and how dishonest the riders are (publicly) to the fans.

You should never believe anything Lance says!

JohnO said:

velonews.com5853.0.htmlOpen ↗

Whether or not this is as serious as it sounds, one bit of irony emerges from the latest trouble:

Hein Verbruggen, president of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) praised the move by Cofidis.

"I respect this decision," he said. "I think Cofidis are showing they are serious in getting the business resolved."

Okay, now how about the UCI getting serious about resolving this business? Isn't that their job?

When a major team like Cofidis has to take itself out of competition, it's a good indicator that the appropriate governing body has dropped the ball. The UCI should have taken action long before that became necessary.

I mailed a contact that I know in the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

The EBU control the allocation of all TV and radio wave transmissions and the allocation of broadcasting licences throughout Europe.
The EBU require all TV and radio licenced companies/organisations to provide viewing figures for transmissions on a quarterly basis.
The reason I mailed this contact is to ascertain the transmission hours of cycling as a sport.

I picked up on a statement made in respect of the Giro, made on Eurosport yesterday.
It said that the Giro has been dropped from Italy's premier national TV station RAI 1, to RAI 3 (there is an RAI 2 channel as well).
The inference being that sponsorship/advertising slots on RAI 1 had decreased when cycling was transmitted.
Therefore RAI management decided to fill afternoon slots with something other than cycling, to earn more sponsorship/advertising revenue.

It seems to me that advertisers don't want their product to be linked to
cycling.
I wonder if this is the case and if so, has this new attitude come about because of all the controversies in the sport ?
When i get the numbers back from contact at EBU, I'll publish same.

I wondered why it was on RAI Tre. ah well, wouldn't surprise me at all if it is because of the tarnished reputation that cycling has. Great sport, shame about the dopers.

anyway, why has this been resurrected?

This, my good man, it at the core of matter. Doping and corporate advertising is directly linked.

Well one step removed from 'direct'. Performance and exposure drive ad revenue. Doping drives performances, and thereby advertising results.

Whether cycling is perceived as 'dirty' is a business/commercial issue.

America Football, both Professional and collegiate is filthy dirty with drugs----but advertising is at all time record highs----despite the recent discovery of the "Whizzinator Plastic Penis and powdered Urine', last April.

Paul Tagliabue & Gene Upshaw are terriffic bald faced liars---and more importantly, football fans want to believe that 350 lb lineman can tackle 250 lb running backs head first with titanium helmets w/o dope. Or that quarterbacks can play 10 years in the league w/o powerful drugs.

Cycling--as a business, is not as 'controlled' as American money sports (baseball, basketball, football, NCAA & pro)

Control of the 'media spin' and the 'scripted lies' determines advertising revenue trends.

As long as fans WANT to believe the lies, this business strategy will continue to work. Obviously a cnacer survivor story adds even more juice to it.

That is what I believe.

limerickman said:

I mailed a contact that I know in the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

The EBU control the allocation of all TV and radio wave transmissions and the allocation of broadcasting licences throughout Europe.
The EBU require all TV and radio licenced companies/organisations to provide viewing figures for transmissions on a quarterly basis.
The reason I mailed this contact is to ascertain the transmission hours of cycling as a sport.

I picked up on a statement made in respect of the Giro, made on Eurosport yesterday.
It said that the Giro has been dropped from Italy's premier national TV station RAI 1, to RAI 3 (there is an RAI 2 channel as well).
The inference being that sponsorship/advertising slots on RAI 1 had decreased when cycling was transmitted.
Therefore RAI management decided to fill afternoon slots with something other than cycling, to earn more sponsorship/advertising revenue.

It seems to me that advertisers don't want their product to be linked to
cycling.
I wonder if this is the case and if so, has this new attitude come about because of all the controversies in the sport ?
When i get the numbers back from contact at EBU, I'll publish same.