Forum menu
Ah right. Not very well today.
😳
I can't believe Dr Ferrari would risk his reputation by allowing himself to be pictured with the Astana team...
Brilliant!
One thing I don't understand: After any win, the riders go to great efforts to praise their teammates, saying they couldn't have won without them, that cycling is a team sport etc. So why don't the winners - who have benefitted so directly from cheats - get disqualified themselves?
Currently there is very little to stop teams from encouraging (forcing?) their domestiques to dope. If the riders get caught, they're cut loose and their contract is annulled. Their career is over and they're shut out, but the team's triumphs still stand.
Surely if riders risk ruining the careers and achievements of not only themselves but also their teammates / friends, this would provide added incentive to be clean?
Nibbles' tour win is definitely tainted, even if it does stand.
Agreed, damn shame because I really like his style.
One thing I don't understand: After any win, the riders go to great efforts to praise their teammates, saying they couldn't have won without them, that cycling is a team sport etc. So why don't the winners - who have benefitted so directly from cheats - get disqualified themselves?
Pretty sure that happens in athletics, for relay teams.
What an absolute mess. I love Nibbles (Aru is great as well) but I don't see how Astana can continue.
Even if they move teams will any of the riders be able to shake the suspicions of being involved with this?
Brian Cookson needs to stamp all over this.
Revoke the license for a year and tell Astana that they've got a year to prove that they're clean - get shot of all the ex-dopers including Vinokourov - and then re-apply for their license.
Don't care about Nibali, don't like him anyway.
Brian Cookson needs to stamp all over this.
Revoke the license for a year and tell Astana that they've got a year to prove that they're clean - get shot of all the ex-dopers including Vinokourov - and then re-apply for their license.
This. Deny Astana pro tour license and that then gives Nibbles the chance to head somewhere else. Where he'd go exactly, I'm not sure, but anywhere has to be better than Astana.
The difficulty is that you can only sanction teams using the terms that they signed up to (which appear somewhat vague!). The UCI couldn't sort Katusha in a similar situation a few years ago following CAS appeals.
Even if you get rid of Astana from the top tier what are you solving? SKY proved just how difficult it is to employ a team of people without a dodgy history and still ended up turning in a fresh faced doper after all the fuss they went through trying to maintain a cleaner than clean image. SKY have certainly suffered performance-wise since the host of backroom staff all decided to "spend more time with the family" coincidentally all at the same time a no doping declaration was required at SKY.
Horner has recently been signed to be a "mentor to the younger riders" at Airgas-Safeway FFS despite his "mentoring" at Saturn and other teams allegedly having a very LA feel to it. Pro cycling is what it is, no point using Astana as scapegoats. Is TST any less linked to doping than Astana? I personally wouldn't miss Vaughters but there you go. He seems popular but it is all a question of spin...
Pro cycling is what it is, no point using Astana as scapegoats
I don't think about it as creating scapegoats. I think about it as punishing those guilty of doping.
some of those having nibali beyond question on the early pages of this thread seem to be a little conspicuous by their absence. 😀
either way, good point on previous page regarding the idea that other doping team members should also null the winner's result
As individuals, and as a team, they are punished within the current rules yet most people cite the need for Astana to be expelled from the top tier to maintain Pro Cycling's credibility... my point is that there are plenty of people beyond Astana who mock cycling credibility so I don't really get what revoking a license, which goes beyond sanctions permitted, achieves in the grand scheme of things. I agree that any form of cheat should be punished but there is a far wider culture to address rather than just jump on making an example of the one choice team that was dumb enough to let guys get caught. History would suggest that the teams to worry about are the ones being successful and not being caught 😕 TST have a who's who of doping in the backroom staff and a leader who most of the time knows how not to get caught... but hey, they have an eccentric backer and neon camo training kits so they must be alright
It's not a question of revoking a license, Astana haven't been issued one for 2015 (neither have Europcar). If the UCI License commission decides that Astana don't have adequate policies in place to deal with doping then they'd be quite right to deny them a license. Obviously this needs to all be in the context of the existing rule book, but I don't see why the rules on this aspect can't be strengthened in the coming years if need be.
what do you suggest then DanW? just let those teams who are caught doping carry on just because they're not a big team like Saxo or Sky?
No idea! I'm not sure the temptation to cheat will every disappear in a sport where there isn't much money to go around but an attractive amount on offer to the very top few and where human performance is such a massive deciding factor. Pros live in a world of "grey" when it comes to pushing the boundaries of the rules but then they are expected to do nuts things on the bike. I personally like short explosive stages and ex-dopers to not be given the time of day when it comes to managing teams but I can't see that ever really happening... there wouldn't be many people left if you kicked out everyone with an association to cheating
a nice little wrap-up rap sheet for Astana
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/astana-timeline-eight-years-of-shadows ]Cycling News article[/url]
a nice little wrap-up rap sheet for Astana
Just had a chance to read that. I knew they had a chequered history and that the staff are dodgy as hell is obvious but bloody hell that sets quite a scene.
They do have an apalling history. It does make you wonder why Nibali, a self proclaimed flag bearer for clean cycling, signed for a team with such dubious management and history. I guess money is the obvious answer.
The only answer, surely!
That Cycling News article iz quite an eye opener, in terms of the length of time and number of 'issues' around Astana.
Then again, as long as the Tour, and La Belle France, continue to see the likes of Virenque as worthy ambassadors for the sport, and as long as ex-dopers are allowed to be DS of a pro team, what hope is there for a real change?
New episode of the cycling podcast today addresses this.
Sounds like the journos are worried they've been had again tbh.
I read somewhere that if Astana do not get a licence then Nibali can leave without breaking his contract- no idea if that is correct or not.
The thing is we are in December, which big team is looking for a leader at this stage? And on the salary Nibali and his team would command?
I read somewhere that if Astana do not get a licence then Nibali can leave without breaking his contract- no idea if that is correct or not.
I suspect that most 'big name' riders would have such a clause. They'd be daft not to I think.
The thing is we are in December, which big team is looking for a leader at this stage? And on the salary Nibali and his team would command?
BMC come to mind, but can't, off the top of my head, think of anyone else.
If they don't get a ProTour licence (won't happen) and step down to Continental, they'd probably still get into the big races because of Aru and Nibali. I could see those two staying for next season regardless. It's not like they'll lose their sponsors either.
I'm sure they'll get it with some pointless clauses in there about anti doping programmes.
What the common consent on this Astana scandal - a team of morons unable to intelligently dope and get away with it or a testing and authority breakthrough?
Sad though, a heavily tainted tour winner again after everything the sport's been through is a proper turn off for potential fans and sponsors.
The thing is we are in December, which big team is looking for a leader at this stage? And on the salary Nibali and his team would command?
[img] 
[/img]
Only looking for a leader if Bertie's been tucking in to the beef again.
It does make you wonder why Nibali, a self proclaimed flag bearer for clean cycling, signed for a team with such dubious management and history.
I seem to remember some merkin proclaiming the same.
Moar news! This is getting big!
Is that actually new though? I guess maybe confirmation of it but I thought all those names were already out there as involved with Ferrari. TBH there's so much crap to rake through I might be getting mixed up.
The thing that stood out for me was the fact they've got more names they haven't released yet.
That's kind of my point - it's just official confirmation of what we already knew.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-accused-of-systematic-doping
And, in the last few minutes...
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/12/news/cookson-defends-ucis-response-to-doping-amid-brewing-astana-storm_355599
every time this appears again, I assume Nibbles has been caught out
that's sad (for me & for cycling - unless I'm the only one 🙁 )
Apparently the UCI decision will be revealed at 5pm GMT today
Unfortunately the UCI have to follow procedure or else CAS will overturn it, and there was no rule that X positives means the team gets demoted
But it's hard to see how they can go on without major changes to the team - surely Vino has to go
Reckon you're right. UCI will have to follow procedure based on the CAS katusha case or they'd be in all sorts of trouble legally for losses, etc. I did wonder if they'd decline the license knowing what's in the report, on the basis that once the full gos comes out, it'll be a moot point but I think that the liability side would prevent that.
Let's be honest, cheating was clearly rife and BAU at astana. In the balance of probabilities Nibbles was at it too. The onus now lies with nibbles to prove he was clean.
The onus now lies with nibbles to prove he was clean.
You can't prove a negative. The suspicion may be there, but the onus is on regulators to prove it via their testing programmes.
I think they will be very cautious, and perhaps grant a licence pending further investigation and perhaps subject to conditions. They have to digest and implement (legally) the findings from a 550 page report, which they only received at the weekend. I think there might be a further ruling once that investigation has been fully accounted for in their findings.
Guess we'll find out shortly anyway! Personally I think it stinks, and Vino is a pretty unpleasant character. Plenty more riders implicated and to be implicated, and clean or not, it's not good for Nibali.
martinhutch - Member
The onus now lies with nibbles to prove he was clean.
You can't prove a negative. The suspicion may be there, but the onus is on regulators to prove it via their testing programmes.
Look you; don't be coming over here, using you so called "logic" to try and stop a witch hunt! Right! 🙂
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-awards-astana-worldtour-licence ]Move along, nothing to see here. Doping? No, no, no. Don't be silly. Of course the team run by a convicted doper, with a litany of dopers in their history and with actual dopers in the team aren't doping. Not even slightly. Clean bill of health, carry on as if nothing has happened. [/url]
UCI have chickened out here, I feel.
Surprised they didn't at least issue it with conditions attached.
Are the Ferrari rumours confirmed?
Does it really matter if they're confirmed or not? Five positive tests in the same team (Yeah, yeah, try and say that the feeder team is separate, but we all know it's the same corrupt Kazakh outfit really) in recent months.
Ferrari is a sideshow here.
what the Cpt says but with more swearing and crap spelling.
Its embarrassing to like the sport when they let them compete and it feels so like LA and just looking away as it is to big[ expensive] to deal with/contemplate but he will remain forever tainted and likely a cheat in my view. The UCI, once more, does not look that clean either tbh.
Does it really matter if they're confirmed or not?
Just trying to understand the UCI decision, I guess it can't rule on unconfirmed rumours which kind of omits the Ferrari link?
The five positives and well documented history should have been enough to at least issue with conditions (if possible).
Disappointing.
Are the comments still disabled on CyclingNews?? This must be killing the frothers over there!