cfforum

I'm interested in your thoughts...mine are below, in response to a friends email:

My 2 cents….

It has nothing at all to do with Lance. Astana (former Liberty Segorous) has spoiled the image of the Tour two years in a row. When Liberty folded (post Operacion Puerto) Vino established Astana under the guidelines of 'new management' and 'new sponsor' to 'clean up' the team, etc. That was obviously a lie. So today, sure, management has changed, but the sponsors haven't. It would be easy for ASO to assume that those who control the purse strings, make the ultimate decisions, and that control hasn't changed….still the same people.

As for the reputation of the current team, Contador was tied to Operacion Puerto (as he was part of the Liberty team with Vino) and Kloden was part of the 10 year drug history with T-Mobile…denials can only go so far when all your training partners were doping. So…I for one don't believe Kloden is clean.

As far as Astana for the Classics…who cares if they aren't there. I'd much rather have Slipstream there who will animate the race and is an American/USA team. Astana is not that. Although I Horner is one of my favorites, and I'd love to see him in Leige, I don't care too much for Levi. I've never found him that exciting…and rarely does he attack…maybe last year in the Pyrenees was the first time he ever tried an attack in the Tour. So…I'm more excited about the next generation of US riders at Slipstream and High Road then I am about an old guard that is associated with the doping past of the sport.

Think about it…if the 90s were the years of the dopers…then certainly Bruyneel was doping. And don't forget…the director at the head of Operacion Puerto…Manual Saiz…was the director of ONCE…the same team Bruyneel spent almost his entire career at.

So…Astana will win everything they get invited to, but come July…I'm not going to miss them at all. Cadel is the man. In 99 when Armstrong won his first Tour, Pantani and Ulrich (the only active former winners) were both out with injuries. There was nothing boring about that Tour at all.

Mark

From: Shawn King [mailto:shawnk@onecap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:22 PM
To: 'David Francis'; 'Steve Fellows'; Mark Fellows
Subject: ASO names teams for Classics

Hey guys, I would sure like you to weigh in on this….. What is your opinion in excluding Astana from these events? Isn’t Astana a Pro Tour team??? Is it justified to exclude Astana??? Do you think the ASO is just trying to exclude anything that has to do with Lance Armstrong… like keeping Bruyneel away from the tour because he has two boys (Contador, Leipheimer) that have the capability to win the event??? Cause even though L.A. has retired, you have followed up with an American win, then a win from the L.A. team… This year, the director of the Lance could put another guy on the top step…… Perhaps it’s another way to try to get a Frenchman to win… Could it be that blatant??? If it is, then why is nobody doing anything about it???? Is there just not a strong enough rider’s union, or group, to protest these ridiculous actions being imposed by the governing bodies???

Your arguments have merit - and I can certainly see and agree with many of your points. The decision to exclude Astana is inexorably a political one though. The fear that Contador would repeat and then be found out in a Puerto investigation was part of the fear but I'm quite certain that some of the remaining big name sponsors laid down the law that they would be leaving for good if this years' Tour was a carbon copy of the last two.

Here's the problem - what if Cadel gets caught doping? To many people it was inconceiveable that Floyd Landis would have been in his current situation two years ago. We "think" Cadel is clean but we've thought that about others.

The thing is - that excluding Astana does not measurably reduce the risk of a scandal....this year. All it does is send a message to a team that if they cause problems, they are banned for at least a year.

On the other side - you can argue - if you buy Astana's Press releases - that INCLUDING them will reduce the risk to this years' tour because they are reportedly running a clean program now. Risk is reduced because you are then [i]excluding [/i]another of the teams involved in the saga of the past few years, who you might not be as confident about. If Astana had no superstars, then they would be in the tour because no one would expect them to win. If anyone got caught this year on a mediocre team, then the press would barely pay attention to it.

I agree this is not about Lance - and you're quite right - it's payback for years of abuses and lots of circumstantial evidence in the case of Johan.

I have to think that much of it is the ASO sticking it to as many people as they can stick it to....cuz they can. They are currently in the cat-bird's seat with the TDF being as popular as ever. So they can use their high popularity as a bludgeon and they have. It's their way of keeping control over the pro tour without organizing it. The teams and sponsors have to be exceedingly careful about cow-towing to this kind of stuff. The "big stage" provides awesome opportunities for production promotion and ROI on the part of a sponsor. But the downside risks are bigger too. Were I a wealthy corporation interested in sponsoring a cycling team I would be worried that the ASO would treat me as an Astana (who is a new sponsor and collateral damage in this fight), and I would be more interested in finding venues and races that were both visible and safe. Tours of Calif and Georgia, Down Under, Germany, etc... All have big local interest but certainly less negative publicity if something goes astray.

My dos centavos....