What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are big boosters of UCI. I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour. All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and thinking.
So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost the war. -- -- Sandy
" La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sХme des fonctionnaires...il pousse des impТts " - ClИmenceau
On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Dumbass,
Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?
Bob Schwartz
Bob
Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?
I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it.
Lister
You don't get it.
Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling access to other races in competition with ASO's races. The disagreement is about money.
And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it so that it doesn't damage the event, something that WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about. The disagreement is about money.
The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they are really talking about money. Poorly managed doping enforcement costs the sport money. The disagreement is all about money.
On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport."
What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.
Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes in July?
What sponsor has lost business because of an association with a doping scandal? Can you name one?
On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport."
What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.
Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?
What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?
Bob Schwartz
So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?
I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association with a doping scandal?
As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping. WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.
In article <f4d5bfe0-27b5-40be-a55a-f016f459f302@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dumbass,
Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?
Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?
I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it.
Lister
You don't get it.
Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
The disagreement is about money.
And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
The disagreement is about money.
The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
are really talking about money. Poorly managed
doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
disagreement is all about money.
If poor doping control costs the sport money, it's about doping
enforcement. What don't you get?
I think it is about money, not dope. The only concern anybody in the governing bodies has about dope, and few enough care about dope at all, is to have an appearance of caring about dope.
Dans le message de news:093c9d41-20c8-4d54-a1af-2cf7183c312b@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> a rИflИchi, et puis a dИclarИ :
On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport."
What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.
Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?
What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?
Bob Schwartz
So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?
This is taking a wrong turn. France is IMHO the country the most dedicated to Maoist confessional moralizing. It's in the culture, in the money, in the cycling. And like the original, confessions give rise to retribution, not to absolution. In addition, promoting the anti-doping stance promotes tourism (small "t") and thus garners bureaucratic and governmental approval. Remember, please, that the trend took itself up a whole level of intensity under Marie Georges-Buffet. And she went rarely to any sort of sporting event. -- Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiИnique des boissons." - Louis Pasteur
"mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote in message news:0363c2d2-a137-4370-8568-03ef842a5eae@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
This is a pretty cynical view of the Pro tour. Is that it? Just a
cash grab by the UCI, with ASO using the doping argument to fight
back? What about the teams having some kind of guarantee they get
into races, that riders get paid, that teams have job security (i.e.
the 4 year term) and the other arguments for the Protour? I'd argue
those are still valid arguments, but that ASO had a point about
reducing the number to 18 and having some kind of relegation/
advancement system for the next level down.
All your arguments are completely valid but that doesn't mean that the actual driving forces behind the actions of ASO and the UCI aren't as Schwartz suggests.
Still, all the political and and public opinion on doping counts for
nothing? Governments are just being lead by the nose to the anti-
doping position by the ASO because of it's fight with the UCI? That
sounds like stretch to me.
Don't get the moralizing of a segment of the government with the actions of commercial interests. They're two different things.
Dans le message de news:0363c2d2-a137-4370-8568-03ef842a5eae@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com, mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> a rИflИchi, et puis a dИclarИ :
On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
The disagreement is about money.
This is a pretty cynical view of the Pro tour. Is that it? Just a
cash grab by the UCI, with ASO using the doping argument to fight
back?
You are starting to catch on ...
What about the teams having some kind of guarantee they get
into races, that riders get paid,
Note that the 2007 TdF purse has not been paid, due to the actions of UCI. So, no guarantee, which was the key reason riders were willing to put up with the Pro Tour.
that teams have job security
Teams doesn't mean riders? Riders have about a half-hour notice from the time someone "suspects" their improper conduct or body chemistry and the end of a career.
(i.e. the 4 year term)
No relegation, unlike the earlier collective rider rankings of a prior season, which made teams much more likely to keep on their best riders.
and the other arguments for the Protour?
What!? A new colored jersey!!!????
I'd argue
those are still valid arguments,
Sorry, but I just demolished each of them, directly.
but that ASO had a point about
reducing the number to 18
In the interests of globalization, perhaps 3 teams per continent? You are far off any logical mark here.
and having some kind of relegation/
advancement system for the next level down.
Still not in the works according to the UCI formulae.
Still, all the political and and public opinion on doping counts for
nothing? Governments are just being lead by the nose to the anti-
doping position by the ASO because of it's fight with the UCI? That
sounds like stretch to me.
Sports junkies are sooooooo much easier to crush than the purveyors, importers, manufacturers of evil drugs - an unwinnable battle - so yes, they have some stake in keeping sports doping at the top of the visibility list. -- Bonne route !
