issoisso wrote:
Probably the wrong thread for this, but I just found an interesting tidbit of information from a 3 year old article.
Look at Caisse with that huge budget. the budget is all courtesy of the Caisse d'Epargne company. Who sponsors the team because they were denied sponsorship of the Bouyges team who "couldn't take them on. there was no room for more advertising on the team kit".
Can you imagine Bouyges with that budget?
I think they're already quite rich, although I don't have the figures anywhere.
As for Bouygues, there's no link between their lack of important results and their budget.
It's their policy to bring riders they rose to the top level, making almost sure they're clean, rather than hiring famous names to win the Tour de France or other big races, but who could get caught and harm the sponsors' image. Yet, they said that after the Beloki disaster, but they still tried to hire Vino late 2005.
Aquarius wrote:
they wish to "practice their job" no matter what
... said the butcher to the sheeps?
.... in other words, the teams and riders have no backbone whatsoever? If anybody should be interested in a transparent set of rules and conditions, it should be the riders and the teams!
Not that the UCI have proven themselves capable of providing stability in the realm of pro cycling, but it seems that the teams and riders are being driven around like small girls at a beautycontest?
Well, let's see how it works.
It's all about capitalism and fame, isn't it ?
Sponsors pay teams and riders so that they appear and get publicity from big events broadcasted on TV.
Riders want to ride big events to get fame and money.
Who cares among sponsors, teams or riders whether it's all ruled by ASO (and ASO likes) or UCI ?
That's why you shouldn't expect teams or riders to say they don't want to ride Paris-Nice.
I bet all that realm is too coward to split for good, and it would probably harm the sport hugely, but wouldn't the best solution be two different circuits ?
One ruled by UCI with riders' rights respected, powerful exploits, new races to the calendar, and no doping scandals. The other one ruled by ASO, with weakest riders, tactical races, some dope scandals every now and then, riders heavily controlled, and traditional races.
I bet both circuits would claim their riders are cleaner, the first because there would never be dope scandals, the other one because they'd seek and find cheaters. Who would be right ?
Well I bet many potential sponsors learned a valuable lesson last year, when looking at the Unibet situation. This year it seems Astana are the black sheep amongst the teams. If anything, a none transparent system can only scare away sponsors, no matter how the races are (not) organised. So, also seen from an economical perspective, no one will gain anything from the (lack of) structure at hand. This will also reflect on the organisers and UCI. Their product will decrease in value (or will not reach its potential in value).
Aquarius wrote:
Must be that thing about having childish hormon values, etc. But if I remind well there were about 6 riders involved, not only Di Luca.
about the child hormone values stuff, I only remember Di Luca being mentioned back then
Aquarius wrote: *babbles and mumbles nonsense about riders rights, human rights, and "innocent until proven guilty" things*ops:
and of course there's Mazzoleni who preferred to retire rather than name anyone else. I wish they'd threaten him with a prison sentence so he'd talk. C'Mon CONI, do it!
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
ops: 
