In article <[email hidden]>,
Quoted post said:Michael Press said:Quoted message said:> Maybe they saw how fair the UCI was to Unibet.
Quoted message said:The ASO and other GT organizers were the ones keeping Unibet from
racing - UCI
were unable to change that.But they did not _try_. Unibet handed over a bunch of money
and got nothing for it. Worse than unfair, UCI defrauded Unibet.I'm shocked, shocked to hear! A bookie took a risk,
gave people money, and got nothing back.
Bookies give you an honest proposition: they tell you what the terms
are, what you're paying for (a chance on a payout, if you're a good
guesser), and what the returns are (posted odds or nothing).
Quoted message said:Unibet (the name) still got some newspaper coverage.
Minor sponsors and the riders did get screwed.
Unibet didn't get promised a betting slip, they got promised entry into
the ProTour. That's what all that money they paid the UCI to be
considered a ProTour team (as opposed to a Continental team, as befell
the "unlucky" ones).
And then it turned out, the UCI wasn't able to keep that promise, and
didn't have the guts (or more likely, the ability) to enforce their
promise by leaning on the promoters.
In short, the UCI sold the ProTour teams genuine Brooklyn Bridges, and
then the City of New York showed up to point out who had built that
bridge.
(PS: City of New York = ASO; Brooklyn Bridge = Paris-Roubaix)
--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos