It’s My Party …
Word comes this weekend that two teams at the center of doping controversies last year — Astana and the former T-Mobile (now Team High Road) squads — have not been invited to the first of the 2008 Grand Tours, the Giro d’Italia. Certainly, with the new world order vis-a-vis pro cycling, where the Grand Tours are not part of the UCI’s ProTour calendar, the organizers are pretty well free to choose whoever they bloody well please. And with the exclusion of Astana and Team High Road, perhaps RCS, the promoters of the Giro, are putting an exclamation point on the fact that they now get to pick and choose.
Of course, 14 ProTour teams will be competing in the event, along with 7 Pro Continental squads. So it’s not like there will be a shortage of top-level talent. Among the newcomers to the Giro will be Team Slipstream. Depending on how the team develops, they may ultimately fill the void left by the departure of Discovery from the pro peloton. Slipstream’s ventures into the world of top-flite stage races will be very interesting to follow and watch.
It’s interesting to note that both teams have undergone major changes in the off-season, implementing stringent programs aimed at preventing doping within their ranks. In the case of Astana, they have hired Danish anti-doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard to oversee their efforts, while Team High Road has signed on with the Agency for Cycling Ethics, the folks behind program that Team Slipstream implemented in 2007.
Perhaps the organizers merely wanted to open the race to a broader range of teams, rather than limiting themselves to the entire ProTour field, with only just a few spaces to fill with their own selections. I would hope that their decision is not a harbinger of things to come. Both teams should be commended for taking the steps to change their internal cultures, and they should be given the opportunity to race in major events. My fear, for both teams, is that they will wind up like the Unibet squad did during the 2007 season, not able to participate in the major events.
Unibet may well have been the sacrificial lamb in the battle for control between the UCI and the promoters of the Grand Tours. Certainly, there was not problem with the Predictor-Lotto team participating in various events. That despite a law that supposedly bans advertising by gaming interests from other countries. Perhaps because the Belgian national lottery tickets are only sold in Belgium, the organizers of the Tour de France are comfortable with Lotto-sponsored squads participating. But Unibet is an online gaming site. In theory, French citizens could log onto their site and place bets on various events. (Unless the Internet Service Providers in France block access to Unibet’s web site, perhaps one of my French readers can let us know about that.)
By the ProTour’s rules last year, Unibet should have been able to participate in the ProTour races, including those held on French soil. The whole struggle between the UCI and the three major promoters was over who had the power to determine the teams in each race. So now, the races have the power again. Without the biggest three events on their calendar, it will be interesting to see if the ProTour can survive. And if so, in exactly what form.
By excluding Unibet last year, the three major promoters basically forced the team out of business, despite the millions of dollars the sponsors paid in order to get their names on the jerseys. At the end of the season, Unibet dropped their sponsorship, after having gotten very little but heartburn as a return on their investment. It was an unfortunate result, given that here was a sponsor willing to pump a major amount of money into a team right at a time when our sport can ill-afford the loss of such sponsors.
The fact that Astana is under new management, and that they currently employ the 2007 Tour de France champion (unless Operacion Puerto rears its ugly head again and leads to a change in the 2007 event’s results), they are not guaranteed a spot in the Tour de France. And, since race organizers are completely free to pick and choose which teams participate, neither is Team High Road guaranteed a spot in the Tour.
It’s far too early to tell, but should both teams be shunned like Unibet was, I would have serious doubts about whether they would be continuing on the following year. No team owner or sponsor wants to see their riders prevented from racing — if for no other reason than they lose their rolling billboards. It’s not much of a return on investment to keep bankrolling a team that isn’t allowed to race.
With the changes made by both teams during the off season, one would hope that event organizers would look favorably on such efforts. How RCS came to decide who gets to ride and who doesn’t is their business, I suppose. In making such decisions, I certainly hope they are not only considering the best interests of the race for the immediate future, but also the best interests for the sport for the long term.
The New Decider
Sometime in April, according to reports I’ve seen, a new head of the Court of Arbitration for Sport will be chosen. Two names have been put forth by the IOC to the 20-member board who will choose the new president. The nominees are former WADA chief Dick Pound and a Switzerland-based attorney named Robert Briner. Briner has extensive experience in the worlds of arbitration and international law, having served as the head of the International Court of Justice, and as the president of the International Court of Arbitration for the International Chamber of Commerce, according to an article in VeloNews.If you’ve been following this blog for a while, you already know who Dick Pound is.
While Pound has been the pit-bull-terrier-in-chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the general scourge of anyone he considers to be a doper, he is too polarizing a figure to be the head of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The efforts he put forth in terms of creating WADA and writing the WADA code certainly are worthy of recognition (positive or negative, depending on your opinion of the man and his creation). But while he has arguably been “successful” as the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the kind of person to head the CAS should not be someone who is a known polarizing and partisan figure.
Pound, of course, dismisses such notions, saying he is “well suited for the job” according to a VeloNews report.
“That’s my job, to cause things to happen,” he said. “If my job becomes to be a neutral decider, then that will be my job and I can do that. Most good judges were very successful lawyers before they became judges … to be a good lawyer you need to be a good advocate. The role of judge is different, but having been an advocate helps you as a judge.”
“Listen, it would be the first time in 30 years that the IOC has given me a job that I actually understand,” he said.
Dick Pound may well understand how to do the job. But that’s a far cry from being able to actually do it. Given his propensity for quotable quotes and verbal barbs about various athletes over the past few years, and given his generally confrontational approach in his last position, it’s doubtful that he could appoint arbitrators who will be impartial to head CAS panels deciding anti-doping cases.
Since the CAS is one of the very few real checks and balances on the current anti-doping system, it’s imperative that the person heading the organization — and the person entrusted to selecting the heads of each arbitration panel — be beyond reproach. On this count, Mr. Pound fails. Robert Briner should be given the job of heading the court of last resort for athletes, including athletes accused of doping.
“Listen, it would be the first time in 30 years that the IOC has given me a job…”—
Okay – so there you have it, from his own mouth to your ears…If you have any questions on who is really behind the “troubles and travails in cycling,” Dickie tells us directly.
What exactly has the IOC to do with “controlling” cycle racing? And unless you just fell off the turnip truck – how is it that the IOC is allowed to “bestow” a position on Dickie baby or any one else, to be “sitting in judgment” read control of the “last and highest court” for sports?
Perhaps we need to say from now on who the players are – IOC-WADA, IOC-UCI, IOC-USADA, IOC-CONI, IOC-AFLD…..hmmmm —- perhaps we should thank Dickie for “slip of the tongue” – maybe BIG BROTHER – has a name and its the IOC?
The addition of the IOC to the “assortment” of decisions being made by the “different groups” – could very well give us a brighter light to connect all these “separate” dots.
Whether we like it or not – the way cycling is moving – the train wreck cannot be avoided – I for one would at least like to know, “Who was the driver?” Helping a “junkie” rehabilitate – doesn’t mean that you kill him in the process. Unless that was your purpose from the very start.
Gambling and bet are stricly controlled in France.
Betting on sport event is forbidden!
Accredited betting organisations like PMU (race horses) pay large tax (40% of their profit).
Advertising for unaccredited organisations is forbidden.
Foreign online betting are not controlled but are illegal.
If Unibet had raced under an other name in France, everyone would have spoken from “unibet” and not from the other name, so Unibet would have benefited from a such indirectly advertising.
With what Jean C says above, it seems that ASO had no choice but to leave Unibet out, and perhaps Unibet should have done more due diligence about the legal status of their team in various countries.
But if the power to decide who gets to race in “big events” is now delegated de facto to ASO, RCS, etc., is also to power to kill of teams deemed (for whatever reason) undesirable, this is a very great power which could be abused, either deliberately or otherwise. Remember, ASO promotes other races besides the TdF, not sure about RCS, but at least in France, there are a number of races under the ASO banner. Now I’m not saying that ASO or RCS or whoever will do this, but it certainly is in the realm of possibility that a team could be excluded, not because that sponsor was illegal in France, or because the team is a bunch of dopers, but because the organizers want to exclude a certain rider who might be a favorite.
Jean,
Thanks for the clarification. Most appreciated.
William,
Not only should Unibet have done better due diligence, but I think the UCI bears some responsibility for the fiasco, too. By accepting Unibet’s application to be a ProTour team, they in essence gave a guarantee that the team would be able to race in ProTour events. It turns out that the UCI was not in a position to make such a guarantee, at least regarding the ProTour races in France. If the same kinds of laws exist in Spain and Italy, then the UCI definitely had no business approving Unibet’s application, given the control the three Grand Tour promoters have over many of the other ProTour races last year.
Morgan,
There’s a bit of humor in Pound’s statement, too. Does that mean he hasn’t been qualified to do his previous jobs, and that he didn’t understand them? What does that say about his leadership of WADA? 😉
It’s a bit early to conclude that RCS and ASO would exclude teams or riders with unethical reasons or because one of them is a favorite. This year is particular because of the PT ruins. Are they already guilty?
When Pro Tour will have full disappeared , new rules will be made, maybe every GT would make his own rules but teams could know what to do.
I was surprise that Bruyneel was not knowing their exclusion before RCS annoucement. I think he is still in mode “old days” like what he did when signing Basso. On his position with his very sad reputation, the astana affairs and the current state of cycling, I would have meet the principal organisers to discuss the future of cycling, races and organisers. Apparently he did nothing. Clearly a lack of vision.
Jean,
I suspect you mean Unipublic, promoters of the Vuelta, rather than RCS. I’m not sure that the reasons for the exclusions would be/are unethical, it could just be politics (certainly the world of bicycle racing has its share of that). I think your critique of Bruyneel is valid. He should have taken the time to build bridges to the promoters, so that they could see and hear about the changes he’s making first-hand, rather than read about them in the papers.
Only one problem with the Unibet thingy.
Unless the Laws changed in the intirim, I seem to remember Mr. Bookmaker racing/sponsoring in the recent past. I have done NO research on this fact, only memory.
Regards,
Dragon,
I have the same recollection. Did the laws change? Or is my memory incorrect? What I seem to recall (Jean C, correct me if I’m wrong) is that France’s law on this topic was written quite some time ago. But I could be wrong.
Rant,
I appreciate your attempt at “lightening” up the situation. Although to be honest — I am not certain that I see much humor with the things going down in the racing world.
As I see it — The whole problem is being presented as the UCI — is making a grab for power. Now this is more then likely true. But who is the “enabler” for the UCI to be pulling such a stunt?
The GT Organizers are being presented as resisting the UCI’s bid for total control.
WADA is in there making sure that the discord is worked to a fine fever pitch. WADA is an arm of the IOC.
What no one seems to think significant is that the IOC — a COMPETING “organizer” has such power that it can dictate who “governs” — how the rules are “developed” in pro cycling!
Now — it would seem to me — that if the UCI is using the WADA Code to function on a World wide level — it is not the UCI that is actually causing the present turmoil — It is the competing “organizer” – the IOC — trying to get CONTROL over the independent organizers of the GT’s and “classics.”
Now — just looking at it from a business point of view — if I was an “organizer” of a grand tour — and it was MY cash cow — I had worked at building races of world caliber level there would be NOTHING that a COMPETING organization could do that would make me give up my cash cow, willingly! Such “temperaments” would rather raze and burn the whole thing before I would “hand it over.”
So if one has a bit of a “jaundiced eye” for certain details — I ask myself — who benefits from “collapsing” pro cycling that is in existence today? And just for a moment — DON’T LOOK AT IT FROM THE POINT THAT THIS IS AN “ISSUE” OF DOPING RIDERS”¦Rather that the IOC — using the “doping situation” is basically “taking out” a competing group of “organizer””¦Letting WADA and the UCI take whatever “flack and destruction” that is the result of it.
Relying on the “nationalistic” shortsightedness that EVERYBODY seems to be exhibiting — under the aegis’s of the IOC ruling structure — the “rules and regulations” that are put into place that have no positive impact on the doping situation.
— Riders were the first line of combatants to be sacrificed.
— The Sponsors were the next to go.
— Next the UCI sets its sight on “controlling pro racing” acting like the “organizers” have no rights at all.
— The turmoil is fueled and mixed to such confusion — under the guise that the “racers” are such dope fiends and so “clever” that when the “unfair rules” are publicly exposed — we the public are divided into arguing ineffectively – might as well be chasing our own tails.
— WADA very conveniently jumped into the fray by “supplying” dopers for the general public consumption.
— Considering that the IOC is the umbrella organization where the adjucating processes are formed, by a “closed” system — I think we should really look at this situation in cycling with a bit larger lens size then we have been.
So in the years since WADA was “created” to attend to the “Doping Problem” — What have we accomplished?
The best known names have had their “reputations destroyed. Sponsors are faced with such an impossible situation — that their only reaction could be to “bail.” The entire cycling world is in complete turmoil. Teams have been destroyed and re-built and still there is no way to make headway and get back to “just racing.” AND — EVEN IF A RIDER SPENDS A SMALL FORTUNE TRYING TO GET BACK HIS REPUTATION — he/she hasn’t got a snow flakes chance in hell to be successful.
Would someone explain to me why anyone could think that what is happening in cycling is a good thing?
So — I am trying to keep it “light” and see the humor”¦but I have to be honest — I am not being very successful.
Morgan, Rock On!
TBV
Some other precisions:
– I don’t remember from a team sponsorised by Bookmaker, that law is older than 10 years, probably 50 or more. Of course small changes can have occured but basic rules should not have changed much.
Unibet was not banned last year for at least 2 major reasons:
– illegal
– by ASO because of a precedent agreement about a Pro Tour with only 18 teams! The 3 GT organisers have ever requested a Pro Tour with less teams and more invited teams.
TBV,
They probably all think now that I am some wild eyed conspiracy theorist – but thanks for the word man.
Jean C.
This is ALL from memory. In Unibet’s lawsuit against ASO in Belgium I believe, and where they were initially awarded something like 5 million Euro’s, part of their argument was that Mr. Bookmaker was an affiliated Sponsor with the “Tour de France” in some form or fashion (I don’t know that they were actually a “team” sponsor). Making the argument that the “ILLEGALITY” issue should be moot. I also think that Mr. Bookmaker was an earlier itteration of Unibet.
Regards,
Morgan,
If IOC has a point for cycling, the only I could see is to ban road cycling from J.O. : there is too many athletes , an road cycling events are difficult to manage with the flow of cars around JO,…
The job of being head of CAS is emphatically not the IOC’s to bequeath- and if Pound doesn’t understand that, or is in his typical way, reinventing the history of the CAS, he’s only demonstrating how uniquely unqualified for the job he is in the first place. He’s a zealot – and as such, he simply doesn’t have an on/off switch, notwithstanding his blustering to the contrary.
The CAS underwent an enormous re-invention a number of years ago, with the institution of the ICAS, because of a bias due to the funding they received from the IOC – following the Gundel case in 1994, a reform of the CAS was ordered by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and ICAS was formed, specifically to step in between the CAS and the IOC, and to take operational and other control away from the IOC.
This is just another example of Pound’s hubris – he knows (more than anyone else in the world) who holds the puppet strings, and he also knows (more than anyone else in the world) who holds the real strings, the purse strings that is. He just doesn’t care that the IOC shouldn’t have any say over who heads CAS – the ICAS is theoretically in charge of that.
The one thing that he does do better than anyone else I’ve ever met is live up to his name and reputation (which are of course one and the same).
-Jello
Dragon,
Maybe that is a Unibet lawsuit in Belgium for Liege-Bastogne-Liege were Bookmaker could be a sponsor of the race organised by ASO… but we have still not invaded Belgium even if we like their beers, chocolates, …!
A national lottery and SPORTS BETTING are hardly the same thing. I can’t understand how Unibet was ever allowed to become a sponsor of ANY sporting team.
I checked their site last summer to find out more about Unibet as the cycling articles I read didn’t really explain a lot. Imagine my surprise to see you could actually bet on cycling. Are you kidding me?!! What if an NFL/NBA/MLB team was owned by Sportsbetting.com or by a Las Vegas casino that handled sport action? A rogue referee would be the least of their problems.
The only thing more compromising in sports than doping is BETTING. Both can make a result “invalid”, but at least with doping, the participant is TRYING to win.
Jean and others:
I am not saying that ASO, or RCS or any other organization currently is excluding riders for illegitimate reasons, just that the possibility exists that sometime, someone might do so. If the precedent is established that a race organizer can exclude riders or teams in good standing because of past transgressions, or rumors, accusations, allegations. etc., than this idea will expand beyond just the
Big Tours.
Maybe part of my problem is semantics. Is it different to an organizer to pick what he considers the 15 best teams out of 20 who apply (however he determines that) than for an organizer to say
“I am not picking Team X because I think they’re a bunch of dopers”? I sort of feel these are 2 different things, but maybe not.
Also, I think in general here in this thread we are discussing and possibly confusing w things: What Rant originally posted about: should USAC violate confidentiality regarding the ID of riders under investigation to assist the ToC to weed out those riders? and 2. Should race organizers be allowed to ban riders or teams otherwise in good standing because they are under investigation? Or, as in the case of Astanta and High Road, because of a past history?
susie b,
Sorry about your comment getting stuck in moderation. Not sure how it happened. Good points. I have to say, it’s a real puzzle how that happened. Being able to bet on a sport/team that the company sponsors seems inappropriate in the same way that Pete Rose betting on baseball games was inappropriate way back when.
Morgan,
Sometimes, it’s better to laugh than to cry, if you know what I mean. You raise some good points. Remember, WADA was created by the IOC at a time when the IOC was under fire for corruption in the way they selected host cities. At the same time, the Festina scandal and a whole bunch of other doping scandals cast a bad light on their ability to detect and punish doping. In some cases, various national Olympic committees were whitewashing things and allowing tainted athletes to keep competing (it’s not just one country, either).
WADA, in theory, is an independent agency. But in practice, the IOC is very influential in how WADA is structured and in who runs the agency. They go so far as to mandate that any sport that wishes to participate in Olympic competition must submit to WADA’s authority. And, they provide a substantial portion of WADA’s yearly budget.
But their hegemony doesn’t end there. The IOC is, according to this Associated Press article on the Sports Illustrated website, the only group allowed to nominate candidates to head the Court of Arbitration for Sport. As the article says:
Even with the changes that Jello talks about, somehow the IOC held onto a crucial bit of power — the power to determine who runs the CAS show. After all, they’re not going to nominate someone they don’t like.
In short, the IOC has their fingers in a lot of pies. What’s going on between the UCI and the promoters is a fight for power and money. Whoever controls the races and the racing calendar controls the sponsorship and advertising revenue, as well as who gets to race. Perhaps the ProTour was a good idea at one time, meant to make the selection process for the major races more “fair” and “transparent.” But if that was the case, it failed, in no small part to the ham-handed method of implementation by the UCI, themselves. No doubt, there may be other stakes that the organizations are fighting over that aren’t so apparent.
Like you, if it were my race and another group was trying to muscle in on what I’d built, I’d certainly do my darnedest to shut them out. That seems to me to be a good summary of what’s going on at the moment. Is the IOC involved in any of this? I don’t see any direct evidence, but behind the scenes, who knows?
Exactly who is the puppetmaster in this whole, sordid saga? Is there one, even? Methinks we’ll never know for sure. But there is definitely more to what is happening than meets the eye.
A good laugh is good for the soul. When DP offers up a gem of a quote like, “Listen, it would be the first time in 30 years that the IOC has given me a job that I actually understand,” I can’t help but laugh, because the cynic inside me is saying at the same time, “Well, that explains a whole f— of a lot!”
If DP gets the job, he will take over an organization in need of being brought back under complete control – which is likely why the IOC nominated him.
In the aftermath of the decision by CAS in the Jerome Young case, which went against the wishes of the IOC and the IAAF, DP went off his nut about the legitimacy of the CAS.
“All this proves is if you are big and have bad breath and are a scofflaw, you can get away with it,”. He also said that the CAS decision was “inflicting serious damage to the fight against doping in sport.” (Chicago Tribune Jan 11, 2003 6n)
Here are a good story from Sports Illustrated that goes a long way to illustrate how hypocritical this guy really is – there couldn’t be a worse choice for the job:
http://media.cnnsi.com/olympics/news/2001/09/18/pound_payment_ap/
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — IOC member Dick Pound’s Canadian law firm received more than $3 million from the IOC over a 15-year period in compensation for his “extra legal services” conducted on Olympic business, the IOC disclosed Tuesday.
The International Olympic Committee said there was nothing improper about the payments, which were part of a private arrangement struck with Pound by then IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch in 1985.
IOC director general Francois Carrard said the payments covered Pound’s legal work in negotiating Olympic sponsorship and television contracts. He said the deal was made on condition that the payments went to Pound’s Montreal-based firm, Stikeman Elliott, and that Pound himself would not receive any money.
The payments stopped when Samaranch’s term ended in July, Carrard said.
“The arrangement is perfectly legal and clear,” he said.
However, Carrard acknowledged that several members of the ruling IOC executive board were unaware of the payments.
The matter came to light after Jacques Rogge, Samaranch’s successor, noticed the payments while going through the IOC’s financial books, Carrard said.
How does that song go: “every cop is a criminal, and all good sinners, saints.”
DP is a partner at Stikeman Elliott – he can’t not get paid on any income to the firm.
jellotrip,
I’m glad to see that it is not only my imagination that leads me to question the “connections” that seem to come up repeatedly in this mess. I keep finding myself asking the same damned question: “With all that is going on – why is the patient slowly being beaten to death?”
Rant,
I do not know if I have been searching for a “puppet master” as you put it – although it would seem a logical question under these conditions. It appears to me that the various “entities” making moves, grabbing for power – all seem to have connections that should lead one to ask: “Hey, isn’t there some “conflict of interest” going on here?” There is always the references being made to having a “clean sport, etc,” that EVERYTHING that is going on, is being done with the “good of cycling and the purging of doping” in mind. Well I am not buying into this – not anymore.
If the WORLD wants a sport governing body that EVERYONE would trust and respect – you cannot start with a governing body that is functioning “behind the scenes!” NO ONE SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO “trust anybody” when such a situation is in existence. Again, I come to ask a question: “Why is my beloved sport being beaten to death?” in front of my own eyes – and I cannot do a damned thing about it?”
William,
You are right, the thread does seem to develope a character that appears to not address the questions put forth by Rant’s comments. But I put to you that this appearance may be only superficial and misleading.
I wish to say that I agree with you – All the points that you bring up are valid, and true legitimate questions. Perhaps you may recall that in Germany last year, this very same problem of “organizers” banning athletes came up several times. The “response was swift and the organizers were directed to stop it by the Courts of Law. Surprise, the UCI and the German cycling federations – did not like these results what so ever, and using their access to the media, managed to mangle the athletes beyond repair.
Understand that in my view – we are not talking about the “innocence or guilt” question – what I see is that we are addressing WHAT the different groups are able to get away with or get around their own rules to massacre who ever they “target.”
I find it annoying to “look at the scene of the crime” and avoid seeing the context in which the crime may have been committed. We have been doing this for the past 2 years – I ask you – “What has it accomplished?” –
Has cycling been made “clean?” NO.
Have rules that are written “slanted” been corrected? NO.
Has ANYTHING that appears as individual circumstances, been solved to satisfaction? NO.
Has any attempt at getting “transparency” been successful? NO
Have we managed to stop the governing bodies from “targeting” anyone they so choose? NO.
So I must ask myself – “Who the hell is running this show? Why is cycling slowly being slaughtered?” and What have I come away with after 2 years of “watching” all this going down? I read Rant’s heartfelt comments, I read people on TBV who I have come to respect, read their thoughts and words so carefully thought out making “every effort” to get “clear and unbiased answers” to this horrible situation.
What do I come away with? Cycling is being destroyed! The people who are responsible for this destruction, are getting away with it. We the public are left completely “impotent” to do anything but make “commentary.” In fact we the public have been played in such a way that our own love of cycling has caused us to fracture, because half of us believe that “cheating” is going on and the “riders” are at the helm of it.” The other half is trying to “reach out” to these fans and point out that there is MORE going on here then what is in the “latest headlines.”
What is going on? CYCLING is being beaten to DEATH. Careers and individuals are systematically being destroyed. We have come to realize that even if there is a “resolution” of a case – we may not trust it!” We cannot hope to find out if ANY accused rider was cheating or not – BECAUSE the rules as they are are directed not at “fairness” or “justice” – BUT rather to give the “governing bodies” the ability to continue their “burn and purge” tactics.
I want names and addresses of these people who are killing my sport! I want these people to be held responsible! I am NOT QUESTIONING that “doping” is a serious” illness in the racing world – but cycling is the ONLY sport that is paying for this! How is it that ALL OTHERS involved have managed to keep under cover in all this? WHO IS helping this to continue?
This whole situation does not occur without “human” assistance. I want to be able to identify who are the “enablers” who are creating this present situation. I think it is time – that we really do look at the whole picture. Otherwise – we shall be here 20 years down the road – still discussing what ASO is doing or the UCI is doing what to whom. And when the “witch hunt” fever lags a little, we can depend on WADA to throw another victim before us. Meanwhile, here we are, the beginning of a new Season. Cycling is slowly being turned into a circus of “freaks” and NOTHING substantial or positive has been accomplished!
I for one will not let myself be “manipulated” this way! I hope that the rest of you won’t either.
SusieB,
As someone who wagers (invests) 365 days every year, be it on competators and teams, CEO’s and Gov’t regulators and the marketplace, on weather in the agriculture belt, or supplies of Coffee, Gold, Silver etal. in Countries I can’t find on the map, on the International political whims of energy, or evaluating if the person across the table has a good hand or is running a bluff and even beautiful animals running in circles, let me give you my take.
A sports book has little or less to gain by gaming/fixing an event. A sports book run effectively makes their continuing profit from setting a line which has 50% of the bets for team X and 50% of the bets on team Y (difficult goal to reach in practice). Since a rule of thumb is 10% fee (vigorish) from the loser, if you can get the bets lined up 50/50, there’s a 5% profit on all wagers taken.
In the NBA you had the ref who was gambling, and could have fixed games, and that’s a concern. In Italy they had the Soccer match fixing scandal several years ago, yet that goes more to the HUGH money in the Champions League and UEFA Cup, then to a quick score at the betting shop.
Top that with the relatively small amounts bet on cycling (in comparison to soccer in Europe…almost nonexistant in the US), a sports betting concern sponsoring a team is advertising, just like lotteries (THE ABSOLUTE WORST BET ON ANY PLANET) and horse racing concerns, note that the Government has NO concerns about problems, only revenue generated. A double standard without either logic or substance, IMHO that is.
Regards,
SusieB,
My comments were not to advocate gambling in any form.
Perceptions are often reality, rather to note that to infer that a sportsbetting site sponsoring a team may cause concerns, similar concerns should also be raised by gambling venues where the Government has a substantial take.
Regards,
SusieB,
One last thing and I’ll let it go (Phew!!).
Aston Villa (England Premiership)…32Red as sponsor…Gibralter Internet Gaming site
Middlesbrough (England Premiership)…888.com as sponsor…Internet gaming site
Tottenham Hotspur (England Premiership)…Mansion as sponsor…Internet casino and gaming site.
I haven’t looked at those 3 sites this morning, yet I will wager you that ALL 3 take bets on Aston Villa, Middlesbrough and Tottenham. Should we expect the fix is in?
I think the UK has it about correct. Their regulatory authority for gaming is the equivalent of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodity Futures trading Commission) here in the US. They regulate all forms of gambling under one agency.
Circling back to cycling. Yes, a gambling site could fix a race. Quite frankly, a Race Organizer could fix a race by tampering with doping controls. WADA or a lab could do likewise. I am not suggesting that any have done so, and ALL are highly improbable, yet possible.
Regards,
Post Script,
It will be interesting just how these French laws are applied in practice.
Tottenham could end up playing either Marseille or Bordeaux in later rounds of the UEFA Cup. If either match-up happens, will they (Tottenham) be required to change their shirts? Somehow I doubt that, but who knows.
Regards,
To clarify, third place in the 2004 Paris-Roubaix went to Roger Hammond (MrBookmaker.com-Palmans). I believe that Paris is in France (but of course I went to an American public school so I could be wrong). Mr.Bookmaker.com competes with Unibet in the same business.
Anytime I hear from WADA or IOC I can’t help but think they are looking for some sort of kick-back from a sports business. Here in the USA we have people like Jesse Jackson, who’s entire livelihood is based upon ensuring that American businesses aren’t racist. This sounds really noble. In reality, he goes around looking for trouble, then makes his money through extortion. Jesse approaches some CEO, “support my motives with some money and I will tell everyone what a great job you are doing.” WADA isn’t so blatantly open about it, but they are basically doing the same thing – even if they aren’t aware of it.
In the first one-hundred year history of professional cycling there may never have been a race that was won by a rider on purely “natural” ability. Perhaps. And you know some of those events were exciting. We even would say that some of the riders were “supernatural” (Merckx, Anquetil, Hinault, Bartoli, Coppi, etc.). Now along comes WADA and their national ADAs. Travis Tygart, “We’re a not-for-profit corporation. We have absolutely no economic aspect. Our interest for all sports is to have the most effective antidoping plan in place. We want to see the best practices in all sports, even if they don’t fall under our jurisdiction.” So noble. But he’s not being genuine. They gain in power, prestige, and treasure by insinuating themselves into sports. But I have yet to see a sport benefit from this.
I concede that in the 90s doping had adversely changed the nature of cycling. Domestiques climbing at the front of the peloton is not good. That said, some of the races were awesome. Even the ’98 Giro. So the problem was not cycling, per-se. So, when WADA insinuated itself into the situation claiming that cycling was intrinsically bad, they could only make things worse. They created a political wedge between organizations that only barely coexisted in the first place. Then WADA imploded those structures (Maybe on purpose or maybe by accident – Morgan). Does anybody think that this era of vindictiveness is going to end? That somehow we will purge all doping then we can have a big hug and make-up. Yeah, right.
I booed Virenque. I won’t forgive Riis. I vilified Frank Vandenbrouke. I don’t believe in Anquetil. Merckx was too good. I will never forgive a doped Musseuw for beating Hincapie. But I loved the races even if I doubted the winner. I loved it when those guys lost. Cycling was still exciting. The events were compelling and they counted. Now, the races suck. Who one last year’s TDF? Or the year before? Maybe in 6-months we’ll know. But by then it won’t matter.
Hi again Rant,
Another good thread: where do you get the time? (smile)… I don’t think I could comb the web, write-n-publish, and discuss… all effectively!
My comments go broad-brush to Susie and Jean C (Bonjour cher voisin!)…
Jean, sometime last summer (07), I’d read that the law that exists in France, is very much similar to other EU countries, that prohibit ‘betting’ except through the state-controlled monopoly (which in FR is the ‘la Française de Jeux’).
So the comments that I should find answers to myself, are:
– why can France prohibit UNIBET.COM as a team, and not face similar actions in other EU countries against FdJ as a team sponsored by betting?
– what makes team LOTTO of Belgium not also a target of FR?
The distinction may be as simple as this, that UNIBET is an online betting/gambling service, while both other teams are sponsored by their respective national monopolies, but it smacks more of anti-competitive behaviour, as well as the ProTOUR – GT standoff(s).
If anyone is up on these aspects, do let me know…
ZENmud
On sports betting and doping in cycling…. Consider for a moment just how much money was made or could have been made betting on Armstrong as he won his 7 Tours. Odds varied but even in the later years it was around 1.5 to 2 to 1–ie with a good bet your could double your money. Now when there is that much cash to be made, don’t certain parties have a real interest in maintaining the status quo (in this case Armstrong dominance)? It all gets murkier when you consider that at one time Armstrong gave 25K to Verbrueggen’s UCI for “anti-doping research” when Verbrueggen was helping the ASO bury calls to test and/or retest samples.
So is/should race fixing be a concern? Probably, given the huge financial incentive involved.
As for Unibet, I sympathize with them but ultimately the Tour should decide what’s in its best interest. For my part, since imho Verbrueggen and McQuaid’s policies are to a large extent responsible for cycling’s problems, I have little sympathy for their Pro Tour project.
Morgan,
Cycling is in the mess since a while, and now is getting better day after day, especially after the 2 last years… OP, Landis, Basso, Vino, Rasmussen, Tmob and Astana affairs have forced everyone to react.
Of course, all is not perfect but have you seen already the perfection here?
Michael,
I am certain that you would also like to see “clean racing.” I think we all would. What I don’t want to happen is that cycle racing falls under the juggernaut wheels BECAUSE some self serving group in power has the means and the access to use cycling as an “example.”
You will not convince me that what has been transpiring in the field of pro racing is being “done for the good” of the sport. Yeah right, lets just look at “what good” has been actually done.
—As the public we are told that “getting rid” of the old guard in racing circles will give us spanking new fresh faced virgin racers who haven’t seen the dark side of pro racing…WHERE THE HECK HAVE BEEN THESE FRESH FACED NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK BEEN RACING – on the moon? Or perhaps Pluto or Mars? Certainly not on our own world.
—If we accept that “burn and raze” approach to “dealing with the “drug problem” – we will get “clean racing.” Come on people, RAISE your hands – all of you who believe this? The only thing we get with “burn and raze” techniques is a bunch of cyclist who are basically “targeted” and then destroyed. We can’t even get an answer if the “”accused” had actually doped at the end of all these farcile proceedings!
—You get a public that doesn’t “know who to believe or who to trust.” That is what we are getting with this fine drug policy that is in action. And why? because we are being sold on a large scale that “doping” – perpetrated by “individuals” – yeah right – has to be put a stop to. The end justifies the means. Right? Well, NOT IN MY BOOK.
—In the States we have a very serious attitude towards the stopping of “street drugs” – we even have a special person known as “THE DRUG CZAR” who is responsible for this. But in the last 30 years of our “war against drugs on our streets,” what have we wound up with? We got prisons full of people who get busted for smoking dope, for having an ounce on them serving time for being Smokers!
—We have gotten sophisticated in our approaches to “tracking” the drug shipments – and we make “busts” worth millions – HAS ANY OF THIS actually STOPPED drugs from being available on the streets? Nope. Are the “people responsible” for making drugs available on our streets” behind bars? Some are – but then explain to me how the drugs are still there?
—Anyone who thinks that we will have a “drug free” racing world is smoking something in their pipes. Just the same as the Olympics presenting itself as being “amateur” and “clean.”
—Mr Prudhome of ASO – can wish for a “clean race” – but the chances of this happening are small. Mr Prudhomme should concern himself with the fact that many of the racers of the TdeF have not been paid their “prize money.” What exactly has Mr Prudhomme done to ensure that “clean racing” is made possible? Other then “holding back the prize money.” It is NOT in Mr Prudhomme’s power to be “judging” who dopes or doesn’t. Mr Prudhomme does not have permission to hold the TdeF hostage ABOVE the rules of cycling – no more so then certain organizers and federations had in Germany.
—Nothing will change and cycling will only get more tattered BECAUSE we cannot “trust the people responsible for keeping it clean.” Having “expectations” that we will wind up with “clean racing” using slanted governance is nothing but buying into what the governing bodies have been using to keep us angry and frustrated – distracting us as much as possible from the simple fact that ALL THEIR “ACTIONS” are not with the simple goal of having “fair sports.” Merely to “get away with the atrocities that they have been perpetrating.”
jellotrip,
Good song quote. Here’s another good lyric from the same song (coincidentally, one of Rant’s all-time favorites):
Of course, you could slip the word “politics” in there, too and it might apply just as well to Mr. Pound.
Jean C,
No I cannot say that I agree with you. I do not see “improvements.” What I see is “infighting” – Backstabbing – media manipulation – a very angry and frustrated public. That is what I see.
What else I don’t see is that the rules are being changed to make it better. what I do see is that there is bickering and power moving from all groups involved.
I do not see any effort” for “transparency” in the different governing bodies. What I do see is that there is “much questions” to be answered why certain people are able to hold positions when they have a vested interest in the outcome of certain results.
What I do see is that the TdeF and the RCS are using the present situation to control who gets to race and who doesn’t. The only ones who should have such power are the governing bodies who are responsible for keeping cycling clean.
What I do see is that Floyd Landis will get a CAS hearing – and this is to be held – “behind closed doors!” Tell me – do you think I would actually “believe” that even CAS is exempt from the mess that is the cycling governing body?
Do you think that I should “accept” Dick Pound as the next president of CAS? You have got to be kidding me.
Morgan,
We are really coming from the same direction. I guess I have just gone a step further and believe that doping is not as big a problem as people make it out to be. A rider can jack-up his hematocrit to 49.9 with an altitude tent or training in the Himalayas, but not with EPO. As a fan, what do I care about such distinctions? Additionally, the popularity of cycling did not wane from 1989 to 1999 – a clear indication that doping is not the scourge we are led to believe.
I find the dopers distasteful. However, I can’t get so excited about it. It’s not the end of the sport. However, the destruction of race results by the anti-doping rules is completely insane. It doesn’t even have any basis in logic. We believe that in the 2001 TDF 8 of the top 10 were doping; so it goes that Lance “must” also have been doped. So explain how this changes the results? Is it the claim that he had an unfair advantage over the rest of the contenders? I can’t deduce that.
Look, cycling openly accepts that certain riders will buy and sell victories in certain situations. Is this less unsportsmanlike (sorry about the double negative)? If there’s a three man break and two of the guys conspire to ensure that the other guy will lose, so that they can split the prize, isn’t that a bastardization of the sporting ethic? Cycling has always had patrons who frequently decide who gets to win. Is that sporting? Perhaps we need a World Anti Fraud Association? I like the sound of WAFA. Dick Pound is made for the job.
Cheating sucks. Doping sucks. Gambling effecting the results sucks. But it’s part of the sport. I’m ok with that as long as it doesn’t become bigger than the event. It adds a level of intrigue to the events. Good, bad, or otherwise. WADA, the ADAs, and the other crusaders against doping have tipped the balance too far one way; The EPO abuse had tipped it too far the other way. The difference is that we can’t get rid of these quasi-government organizations. EPO abuse will pass in time once the science and testing catch up. We’ll never get rid of WADA. Alas.
Michael,
I couldn’t agree with you more. The thing I find myself truly pissed about is that the “riders” have been used like cannon fodder.
On close inspection of the “rules” – we find them to be “wanting.” If we all agree that doping should be a no-no – I can live with this. You are right – putting in the “fix” has been going on since any type of competition has existed.
The duplicity that is being “applied” to get “results” that the governing bodies desire is personally for me abhorrent – ESPECIALLY since they need not be.
To me – “cleaning up cycling” has very little to do with doping – and has everything to do with having governing bodies that are truly impartial and can be trusted by all involved.
By the time EPO is “easily” spotted – something else will be already in the mix.
Having said this – it still stick in my craw that what has happened to the athletes is grossly unfair – AND even when a trial is settled – the question of guilt or innocence may not be answered.
If you gonna target somebody and call him a liar and a cheat – you had best be able to prove it – OTHERWISE you should have to pay for your accusations!
We are not at cross purposes in our stance here Michael.
Michael & Morgan,
Before I am accused of advocating doping, let me say, I don’t condone doping.
From an American perspective, I submit that MOST American sports fans are at best agnostic on the issue.
Take the latest Baseball spectical. A whole lot of bluster, and in the end not much I suspect. There would be far less bluster had Barry Bonds not broken the most hallowed record in a sport steeped in “record addoration”.
I would gladly pay 10 cents for each angry fan who does not come back to the sport, IF I get 1 cent for every angry fan who will be back in 2 months time, or mid-summer at the latest. I will be thousands if not millions of dollars ahead.
Football, while fans probably don’t dwell on the issue, does anyone who thinks seriously on the issue for a couple of minutes, really believe that these 300 pound linemen aren’t on something? If the spectical is good enough, accceptance comes with the territory.
I also submit, that even in cycling, there are more fans who love the spectical. Even with all the melodrama in the 2007 TdF, it was great spectical as well as good Soap Opera. I don’t have a clue how it actually played to the masses, yet I suspect the bluster of the organizers and WADA masked a more general acceptance of reality, then the vocal minority.
Regards,
It’s tempting to blame cycling’s problems on one party or another–to ascribe blame to meddling authorities or the reactionary omerta. But ultimately cycling’s problems are grounded in the realities of capitalism and science and how sporting merit is rewarded.
1) In cycling, success, endorsements and money require wins or other publicity-gaining activities.
2) Cyclists benefit immensely from PEDs.
3) It’s very difficult to detect PEDs scientifically, and cyclists have immense resources at their disposal to buy/develop new drugs and/or circumvent testing procedures. Consequently, cycling knows no other way of proceeding except continuing to use PEDs, given that if they don’t use, somone else will.
4) Since Festina, the media and the police are interested in doping and have taken steps to expose dopers. The media has also become aware of the potential dangers of PEDs and PED-related deaths.
5) Partially as a consequence of this, European countries have enacted or will enact anti-doping laws. Sponsors, also, are under pressure to do something about doping.
6) Given #4, the media focuses on “gotcha” stories that expose the lies and manipulation necessary to maintain doping.
These facts are the basis of cycling’s structural problem. The UCI, fundamentally, is an extension of the omerta. Reforming voices in the UCI are mainly the result of pressure from the media and changes of attitude within some teams, as well as pressure from organizers. WADA, meanwhile, is fairly new to the scene (10 years is not a long time) and simply doesn’t have the resources to stop or regulate doping. Pound seems to have seen his task as pursuing dopers and calling attention to doping, but there was no way of doing this without calling attention to the systematic nature of doping–which in turn won him hatred and derision. I can see why he prefers the idea of being an arbitrator over a job where his primary duty was to provoke people and make people unhappy.
What I find frustrating in this mess is that even after the power of new media has demonstated that virtually nothing can escape its gaze, the structure of cycling continues to encourage doping and the lies necessary to sustain it. It’s true there are no easy answers for the doping problem. But there has to be a way for the sport to maintain some honor.
One article always worth revisting is the sport historian John Hoberman on the Festina scandals.
http://www.thinkmuscle.com/ARTICLES/hoberman/tour.htm
The piece is worth reading in its entirety, but here is his conclusion….
“There is, in fact, a case to be made for quietly ignoring the virtually universal doping that goes on in this “extreme sport,” an argument that accepts and even embraces the medically extreme and potentially fatal character of the ordeal itself. It is an argument that is (from its own perspective) properly contemptuous of medical humanitarianism and fastidious concerns about sportsmanship in the traditional (and here outmoded) sense of the term. This argument was boldly launched into the midst of the Tour madness by the German journalist, physician, and cycling fan Hans Halter, who presented it with the precisely correct doses of principled defiance and ironic pathos that this philosophy of “sport” requires. “No one can seriously expect,” Halter wrote, “that these extreme athletes, tortured by tropical heat and freezing cold, by rain and storm, should renounce all of the palliatives that are available to them.” (26) Indeed, no one can, for those who accept the ordeal must concede to the martyrs at least a measure of relief. What the Tour scandal tells us is that modern society does not even know how to begin to draw the line.”
His point on modernity is the crux–what we see in cycling is modernity’s leveling gaze catching up to the traditionalist and morally eccentric world of cycling. In sport, the power of modernity demands standards of fairness and truth that traditional structures aren’t built to provide. Eventually, cycling has to face up to the reality that there is no place to hide–eventually it has to deal with its structural problems.
Good piece Ludwig.
In thinking on this issue, I had a sort of Eurika moment. Not, in that my thinking has really changed, and it is probably something that I am sure ALL of you understand and take for granted.
Why is cycling the whipping boy for the anti-doping community, and why does it get more traction than in other sports, with almost no care from fans in other team sports.
It’s the structure. By structure, I don’t mean UCI, GT’s or WADA World, rather if you are a supporter of Barcelona, Manchester Utd, Inter Milan, Real Madrid, Ajax, Chelsea and many more, the squads are just as International as many cycling teams, yet something is very different. In soccer, used here as an example, there are LIFELONG supporters for these teams, and hundreds of others. There are similar constructs for Baseball, American Football, Basketball and in the US College Sports. The fan is LOYAL to the team or University. Those are the constants which rarely change. The athletes come and go, some in an instant, others stay longer, yet in the course of a lifetime of support, it is but a small space of time.
In ALL these sports, if one is local to the team, you may go to see a home game to show your support.
In cycling, from my perspective, WHAT/WHERE are the teams anchored? There is really no home event, I am sure there is provincial support for some of the teams, yet are there lifelong supporters for any cycling team? Is this a majority or a minority
I am probably all wet with these thoughts, yet might the concrete existance of Soccer, Baseball, Football etal. be the reason that doping allegations are viewed less seriously by these supporters? Their team will survive, and that survival is more important than other transient concerns?
Regards,
Dragon,
I think you have a good point, though on the flip side athletes who are local celebrities also have the added burden being examples to the youth.
One factor has gotta be the money–the plentiful amount of cash these sports generate helps stifle doping investigations. However, imho the factors I’ve mentioned (modernity’s emphasis on ethics and transparency, the inability to hide from new media) will also lead to the exposure of doping in other sports. Daily testing may be the reality across the board 10 years from now.
That said, cycling and other endurance sports will presumably continue to be the brunt of anti-doping discussion, mainly because doping is so essential to victory. Of course, it may now be the case that doping is also essential in soccer, etc.
Michael, Ludwig, Dragon,
I am not against the concept of what WADA is supposed to stand for. I do not believe that I can address myself to the question of whether doping is “safe” or not. I do not believe we have had time enough to make such conclusions in the real world. The concept of “enhancing human performance” is not new – but in my experience only the military has ever bothered to really look into it – and they’re not forthcoming with answers.
I am against doping. If what I have come to see and read about what “steroids” have done in the body building world – the after effects, the organ problems, not to mention the chemical psychosis, etc, I would never recommend that anyone play the guinea pig “merely to win.” I think those who do play this gamble are being very short sighted at the least.
I am not naive to think that when stringent laws are passed to “control” such products – there will not be individuals who will make a business of selling it to those who want to use it.
I would like to see that cycling does get a world wide accepted organization that can “police” what needs to be policed. But in order to get something like this going – it may not be built on foundations that are more designed to manipulate “popular” beliefs, fears and opinions” to gain their ends.
I am AGAINST having cycling ruled by laws that ignore basic individual rights and turn the process of jurisprudence into nothing more then a game of “win,” AT THE EXPENSE OF ATHLETES who have little to no means of defending themselves, other then the convoluted set of rules that are set up not to seek clarity and justice.
I have every wish that all bikers from whichever part of the world have a chance to make a living in this very difficult choice of careers. I am against “extolling winning” to young people at the expense of honor and ethics. But I am not naive enough to think that some won’t try to get an edge doping!
I do not address myself to pro football or baseball – these were never my sports and I make no claims to insight about them. At one time, I rode a bike – I even raced it a little. I loved it. I loved the challenge of getting on the line with a few hundred other people and seeing who can ride across that finish line first.
I am fed up with governing bodies who seem only interested in perpetuating their existence at the cost and ability of the individual to make a living in his chosen profession.
Dragon, Michael – I am not as jaded in my outlook or as low opinionated as you seem to see it. I am more of a romantic and an idealist who loves racing bikes, loves watching bike racing – seeing before my eyes a group of athletes who are struggling to get out of their own heads and put it all together. I don’t believe that “drugs” are a necessary part to fill this equation.
I choose to believe that Floyd Landis raced cleanly. I have no way of directly knowing this to be true or not – but I do know that it is possible to extend yourself as Floyd did on Stage 17 – if you “put it all together.”
It is monumentally puzzling that we do not react to the simple fact that Floyd had to spend over $2,000,000 dollars to try to get a trial to contest his accusers. I find it absurd that we “argue” against what should be “warning bells for anyone” to see attempts at “justice” cost a man his whole earnings!
I find it puzzling that no one reacts to what are obviously slanted rules in place to keep the policing of Racing muddied at every turn possible – so that the accuser has the upper hand – where but in a dictatorship would such a concept be “acceptable?”
Ludwig – you are right – there are individuals and groups within the cycling community that will do everything possible to bury the problems of doping and cheating – there are also people who are trying very hard to clear up the present situation. I do not believe that this will be accomplished over night. Since “cheating” seems to be a subjective idea that the whole decides to accept as wrong, and since I am also a part of the whole, I will go along with it.
At the same time Ludwig – I sincerely do not believe that we can build to such ends with rules and governance that are antithetical to the concept of “fair and just governance.”
Whether you agree or disagree with me about Floyd Landis’s guilt or innocence – one thing you should really consider. Whatever “outcome” is given out by CAS – the question of Floyd’s innocence or guilt will not be solved or answered. If this is true – then how may we hope to expect fair governance through out the racing world when the existing rules cannot even give us that!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/sports/baseball/05chass.html?_r=2&ref=sports&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
“The steroids zealots known as the boys from WADA want to save Major League Baseball from itself. Major League Baseball, a high-ranking official of the World Anti-Doping Agency proclaims, is a sport in turmoil.
That’s the word he used “” turmoil.
“We have experience working in sports in similar situations,” David Howman, the WADA official, said. What sports might they be?
“Cycling is one,” Howman said. “We’ve tried to help that sport.”
Referring to the Mitchell report, Howman said:
“With more than seven dozen of Major League Baseball stars in there, it must be a sport in turmoil. If it ignores the report, the sport isn’t answering the turmoil.”
It would seem that WADA is NOT GETTING the “expected” response from baseball — at least not from the above article.
Mr. David Howman — was door knocking it would appear — hoping to find some “ripe” pickings.
Mr David Howman says that WADA has “helped” cycling. Yeah — we are seeing a lot of the results of their “help.”
I am certain that Baseball is not so gullible as he and WADA found cycling to be.
Can’t wait to see how WADA tries to use “public” pressure to force itself on baseball”¦this should be good.
I come back on betting- gambling in France.
Yes team Mr Bookmaker (ex Unibet team) was on 2004 Paris-Roubaix.. maybe they have made other races, but it’s like me I can do drive too rapidly and never be caught… The end of their participation began when “La Française des Jeux” sued them.
So breaking the law was not possible for everyone.
Zenmud has writen about anti competitive behaviour… it would be more right to say a strong financial advantage for outside betting and gambling companies which don’t pay the same amount of taxes. Maybe Unibet could propose to return the same amount of tax to french to be accepted as challenger of our national monopoly?
Jean C,
Just to be sure there is NO misunderstanding, I have no problems with French Laws being whatever they are. My question is that the participants may selectively use laws to their own purpose (like just about everywhere else in the world.)
I would just be interested how this law might be applied if Tottenham happens to play Bordeaux or Marseille in the UEFA Cup. Will Tottenham be required to take off their shirts? I somewhat doubt it, because UEFA might very well penalize French teams (Lyon, Bordeaux & Marseille) in the Champions League and UEFA Cup.
Regards,
Continuing with the topic of “who gets to decide” – consider this.
We read much hoopla about the fantastic “new race” the Tour Down Under” – the UCI is very proud of this – as they would have us believe.
But how many know that the TDU is being managed by ASO…makes you think – don’t it? considering the amount of “press” we are getting about the strife between the UCI and ASO…does anyone smell anything – yet?
Consider also that last year – ASO and a sub affiliate bought up the rights to some major German races here abouts…and also some races in Switzerland – one wonders if the UCI is nothing more then bluster? Tactically – ASO would seem to be holding all the aces here folks.
Dragon,
I don’t know exactly the laws but there is a difference between Tottenham and Unibet… For the advertising on the jerseys, probably they will have to mask it.
I am pretty sure that UEFA agrees to respect the laws of every country. Recently an athlete could not enter in a country because of lack of passport… should UEFA penalize the local team because laws requiere passport to enter at the border?
Jean C,
You may well be correct. Yet, it would prove interesting. The interesting point is the European Union. The reason I suspect that Tottenham would wear their shirts, is that no one has reason to complain…sort of a blind eye.
Otherwise, you end up with all the provincial tit for tat which the European Union is meant to avoid. How does the European Union decide when having to choose between French laws and English laws (which Tottenham is abiding by)? The bureucratic answer…avoidence.
As to your point about a passport, there are several nations, England in particular, who are trying HOW to limit the number of non-English players in the Premier League, as the Brits feel their World Cup woes are partially caused by Englands inability to limit Italians, French, Spaniards, Germans…due to European Union internal passport laws.
Regards,