Fuji-Servetto and Liquigas

[Skip Madness]

I know I have been a supporter/apologist (delete as applicable) for the old Saunier Duval team for some while, but does anyone else think ASO (and, earlier in the year, the Tour of California organisers) are being totally inconsistent in taking a hard line against Fuji this year while making no fuss whatsoever about Liquigas?

Let's review why Fuji are being black-listed by ASO. It comes down to two words: "Riccò" and "Piepoli". Fair enough, you might say. Those two "won" three stages of the Tour last year thanks to some illegal assistance and ASO can be understood to want to make the team repair their image before immediately associating themselves with them.

So why are they inviting Liquigas to all of their top events, including the Tour? Last year Liquigas too had a rider test positive at the Tour - Manuel Beltrán - but unlike Saunier Duval they saw fit to leave their team in the race rather than withdrawing. Outside of the Tour, they had also decided to opt out of the ProTour code of ethics (which stipulates that ProTour teams should not sign a rider who has been suspended for doping for four years after the offence, even if the UCI suspension is only two years) so that they could sign Ivan Basso, someone who has laughably maintained that he only ever planned to dope and never actually did it. This was a flagrant two-fingers to the fight against doping that ASO say they are so worried about. A week ago one of Liquigas' neo-pros, Gianni Da Ros, was arrested in connection with the trafficking of doping products.

Despite the rumours that abounded last July, there has been zero evidence of any systematic doping in the old Saunier Duval team. Yet they are now (rightly) without their two top riders who cheated their team-mates and everyone else last year, and have also lost Ángel Gómez Marchante (who unsurprisingly jumped at the chance to join Carlos Sastre at Cervélo). Additionally, the old backbone of the team - Mauro Gianetti and Joxean Fernández Matxin - have had to take back seats so that they are less associated with the new outfit (despite not being implicated in last year's scandals in any way) for the sake of better PR. Now, I would understand all of this quite easily if ASO were taking an even harder line against Liquigas, a team who seem to have actively seeked to tarnish their own image. But they have not.

What is going on?

 

[Keith Oates]

ASO did the same thing to Astana last year, it helps to boost Rudehomme's ego!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[John the Monkey]

I can understand the rationale behind excluding Astana and Fuji, but can't for the life of me see why Liquigas are getting to ride these events this year. Particularly given Leaky's pulling out of the ICPT to sign Basso.

 

[girofan]

Money doesn't talk, it swears!

 

[yello]

I've only just read of the Fuji-Servetto exclusion. That's as it should be imho and I have no problems with that. The Liquigas situation is curious. As you present it SM, it does seem inconsistent.

I cannot see that ASO would operate a different set of rules for different teams so there must be (says he naively!) some genuine reason. I can only assume the circumstances involving the teams/riders are sufficiently different for F-S not to be invited but for Liquigas to get a call. A reason other than money or personalities!

I feel sure others will ask the question of ASO and we'll see the reasoning in the fullness of time. I hope.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

ASO did the same thing to Astana last year, it helps to boost Rudehomme's ego!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keith, I think you are in a minority of one here. No-one else thinks that the Astana and Fuji exclusions were not entirely legitimate, it is just the Liquigas inclusion that we find inconsistent...

 

[andy_wrx]

ASO did the same thing to Astana last year, it helps to boost Rudehomme's ego!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keith, I think you are in a minority of one here. No-one else thinks that the Astana and Fuji exclusions were not entirely legitimate, it is just the Liquigas inclusion that we find inconsistent...

Yes, an astonishing attitude.

The OP declares himself as "a supporter/apologist (delete as applicable)" for Saunier Duval/Fuji Servietto, but perhaps you, Keith, should declare yourself as such for UCI, Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen !

You consistently post against Prudhomme and ASO, but they did far more last year to combat doping by pulling TdF out of the ProTour, letting AFLD do the drug-testing and actually catch and exclude some dopers than the UCI powers-that-be attitude of 'hide it under the carpet, it's bad publicity".

ASO also realise it's bad publicity, but recognise that it has the potential to destroy the Tour, to turn-off the watching public, stop broadcasters airing it, stop newspapers writing about it.

So they're doing something about it, rather than being ostriches-in-the-sand like the mandarins in their multi-million franc headquarters in Switzerland.

And that doing something about it includes banning those teams likely to bring bad publicity to the Tour.

Yes, I also can't see a great difference between Leakygas and the Boilermen, both would appear equally rotten organisations with a team management organisation with at-best ambivalent attitude to doping.

 

[Keith Oates]

Andy, I will admit that you are very consistant and can always be relied upon to join in any thread that involves negative vibes to cycling and cyclists. If that is the way you enjoy your interest in the sport, so be it, but its not mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Keith Oates]

Keith, I think you are in a minority of one here. No-one else thinks that the Astana and Fuji exclusions were not entirely legitimate, it is just the Liquigas inclusion that we find inconsistent...

FM, in this thread so far you are correct but IIRC there were many others that also thought the handling of Astana last year was not intirely good. There were however the Discovery, Bruyneel and Armstrong knockers who thought it was justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[John the Monkey]

Unfortunately, I think the key to attacking dopage will prove to be making the teams suffer - at the very least, it will give them a powerful interest in what their riders are up to, and in noting what relationships with which doctors they have established.

It is, however, important that the rationale makes sense - giving Liquigas a ride this year simply doesn't, to me.

 

[rich p]

I find it hard to understand, Keith, why you support the flaccid, self-serving UCI so much and denigrate ASO and Prudhomme's attempts to do something positive on doping.
I agree with the others here that Liquigas should be penalised.

 

[Keith Oates]

rich p, I have again read through this thread and don't see anywhere where I say I support the UCI. However as you've brought the subject up I will clarify my thoughts on the subject. I did not like the way Verbruggen (sp) was running the UCI and thought that perhaps McQuaid could improve the situation. He did not appear to make much of a change to me and it seems that this was mainly because Verbruggen was still all powerful and was pulling the strings. ASO then took it upon themselves to take on the UCI and used financial clout to achieve this end and appeared at one time to be trying to take over the role of the UCI. The sport that I personally love was being ripped apart by this 'war' and I didn't like it. It now seems that Declerc (sp) was the driving force behind this attempt to unseat the UCI. It is my opinion that no company, no matter how rich or powerful, should unseat the legally elected world body. I have said on this forum sometime ago that perhaps it was time for a change at the top of the UCI but to me that change should be done by the world cycling election system and not by ASO. Thankfully it seems that the ASO top brass realised this and some sanity has returned to the sport. It's now up to McQuaid to show he is the man to run the organisation and if he fails then the world election system should get him replaced. ASO have every right to express their opinion on this and to even support their preferred candidate but this should be done through the ballot box and not by unilateral action.

 

[rich p]

Keith, I was generalising from your past posts!
I respect your point of view but as I blame the UCI for the mess cycling is in due to their historic head-in -the-sand attitude to drug abuse I can't agree with it. Still, we all have our view.

 

[Chuffy]

It is my opinion that no company, no matter how rich or powerful, should unseat the legally elected world body.

Even if said world body is about as effective as a chocolate teapot in terms of fighting the problem of doping within cycling? Criticising ASO for taking unilateral action is akin to chastising someone for picking up a fire extinguisher instead of calling for the fire-brigade.

UCI have historically been lazy, complacent and even complicit in failing to adequately deal with drug use within cycling. If ASO decided to take unilateral action to deal with the problem more effectively then the onus should be on the UCI to raise their game.

Dealing with the issue of drugs is more important than worrying about process and etiquette. That is the thing that is damaging cycling, not whether UCI have had their noses put out of joint.

 

[Keith Oates]