Relation between UCI ProTour and GT (TDF)

poulidor said:

In the past, TDF chose teams to participate to TDF. With ProTour, TDF seems not to have this possibility except "wildcard".
But if many suspect riders are in teams, i think, TDF will try to do a step backwards and leave ProTour.
Is it possible? Thanks for your response.

They already did...

cyclingheroes said:

They already did...

Thanks.
So it will be difficult for any riders involved in the last "scandals" to participate at TDF.
Maybe, they can sign in a french team and follow their heath control to prove they aren't using PEDs!

poulidor said:

Thanks.
So it will be difficult for any riders involved in the last "scandals" to participate at TDF.
Maybe, they can sign in a french team and follow their heath control to prove they aren't using PEDs!

The code the conduit is a Pro-Tour rule, not from the TdF, so it's easier for them to participate at the TdF...

cyclingheroes said:

The code the conduit is a Pro-Tour rule, not from the TdF, so it's easier for them to participate at the TdF...

If OP isn't conclusively dealt with by July 2007 can you envisage the Societe allowing any rider that still has suspicions surrounding their case to start the Tour? I seriously doubt they would, and risk 2 years in a row having the Tour winner embroiled in a scandal.

I don't know. personally i am not so sure that ASO was behind the suspensions, i think it was the UCI. They used Puerto in their struggle with ASO...

But to be honest that is my personal speculation..

Rolfrae said:

If OP isn't conclusively dealt with by July 2007 can you envisage the Societe allowing any rider that still has suspicions surrounding their case to start the Tour? I seriously doubt they would, and risk 2 years in a row having the Tour winner embroiled in a scandal.

Rolfrae said:

If OP isn't conclusively dealt with by July 2007 can you envisage the Societe allowing any rider that still has suspicions surrounding their case to start the Tour? I seriously doubt they would, and risk 2 years in a row having the Tour winner embroiled in a scandal.

Don't you mean nine years in a row?

helmutRoole2 said:

Don't you mean nine years in a row?

oh yeah,my mistake!
🙂

cyclingheroes said:

I don't know. personally i am not so sure that ASO was behind the suspensions, i think it was the UCI. They used Puerto in their struggle with ASO...

But to be honest that is my personal speculation..

I don't have any inside information, but I got the impression that the ASO was determined to force the OP riders out. They seemed to be quite upset when it was discovered that Armstrong was doping and wanted to get rid of the accused no matter what the consequences.

The actual mechanism used to expel the riders seems like one giant CYA. The ASO used the ProTour's ethics code to get rid of the riders rather than do the expulsions themselves. In any sort of legal dispute they can claim it was not them but the teams themselves that are at fault, and the teams can claim they had to abide by the ethics code, and the ProTour can claim all the riders accepted the ethics code. The riders have no one to blame than themselves because they have an inneffective pro riders' association.

So what is to stop the ASO and the other GT organizers from demanding that anyone who competes is required to give a DNA sample and to authorize its use for testing and retro testing, including blood siezed in the OP. If you don't agree, you don't compete. How many riders entrapped in OP would be willing to sign?

I think if the GTs want to get serious, they should ban all ProTour logos from riders' jerseys, team cars, etc. They should also renegotiate their TV contracts to forbid any mention of the ProTour while coverage of their events is being broadcast.

Bro Deal said:

So what is to stop the ASO and the other GT organizers from demanding that anyone who competes is required to give a DNA sample and to authorize its use for testing and retro testing, including blood siezed in the OP. If you don't agree, you don't compete. How many riders entrapped in OP would be willing to sign?

I think if the GTs want to get serious, they should ban all ProTour logos from riders' jerseys, team cars, etc. They should also renegotiate their TV contracts to forbid any mention of the ProTour while coverage of their events is being broadcast.

I think ProTour is a disadvantage for GTs at least in european country where race names are more important than a Pro Tour label. we saw that in Giro di Lombardia too.
By themselves, they can get or earn more moneys without ProTour label. So advantages are for UCI and ProTour. Some problems between Pro Tour/UCI and GTs are here !
Don't forget, ASO organises Fleches Wallone, Paris Roubaix, Lieges-Bastogne-Lieges, Paris-Tours , Tour de l'Avenir, Paris Nice, ...
Giro, Milan-San Remo, Giro Di Lombardia are done by RCS in Italia.
In Spain ?

I thougt that as well (ASO) but i staterted to change my mind at the Giro di Lombardia, i think it's possile that the UCI used Puerto toharm ASO biggest event: The Tour De France. I am on that story and collecting information, can't say more at the moment.

Edit: changed Giro d' Italia into Giro Lombardia

Bro Deal said:

I don't have any inside information, but I got the impression that the ASO was determined to force the OP riders out. They seemed to be quite upset when it was discovered that Armstrong was doping and wanted to get rid of the accused no matter what the consequences.

The actual mechanism used to expel the riders seems like one giant CYA. The ASO used the ProTour's ethics code to get rid of the riders rather than do the expulsions themselves. In any sort of legal dispute they can claim it was not them but the teams themselves that are at fault, and the teams can claim they had to abide by the ethics code, and the ProTour can claim all the riders accepted the ethics code. The riders have no one to blame than themselves because they have an inneffective pro riders' association.

helmutRoole2 said:

Don't you mean nine years in a row?

Don't you mean 103 years in a row?

cyclingheroes said:

I thougt that as well (ASO) but i staterted to change my mind at the Giro di Lombardia, i think it's possile that the UCI used Puerto toharm ASO biggest event: The Tour De France. I am on that story and collecting information, can't say more at the moment.

That would be very interesting if it is true. If so the UCI would be playing with fire. I think I read somewhere that the ASO takes in about 70% of the television revenue for the sport of cycling. Does the UCI get its funding from taking a sanctioning fee of all the races? If the ASO, RCS, and Unipublic pull out of the UCI then what source of funding would the UCI have?

If it is true then it perhaps Ullrich and Basso would be allowed by the ASO to race the Tour.

Bro Deal said:

If it is true then it perhaps Ullrich and Basso would be allowed by the ASO to race the Tour.

Come to think of it, might be a very good way to stick it to UCI. Between ASO and RCS, there are enough of the important races that the two organisations and any teams that choose to side with them against UCI and the Protour could easily ignore the latter.
Hhhhmmm...

Bro Deal said:

That would be very interesting if it is true. If so the UCI would be playing with fire. I think I read somewhere that the ASO takes in about 70% of the television revenue for the sport of cycling. Does the UCI get its funding from taking a sanctioning fee of all the races? If the ASO, RCS, and Unipublic pull out of the UCI then what source of funding would the UCI have?

If it is true then it perhaps Ullrich and Basso would be allowed by the ASO to race the Tour.

Massak (president of the Austrian Cycling federation) attacked the UCI and it's Pro-Tour earlier this week. Massak is the fifth president of a cycling federation who want to see the end of the Pro-Tour (earlier: Belgium, France, Spain and Italy).