Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Tuesday Roundup

The CyclingNews says that all of the teams participating in the Tour de France this year have already signed an anti-doping "contract" with the ASO. Since the race is not being sanctioned by the UCI, the ASO, in conjunction with the FFC, will establish its own rules and regulations for the event. Huge fines will allegedly be imposed on any rider caught doping. The implications of these actions is inescapable, and with no strong union to protect them the riders' rights may be in even more peril than they have been in the past. A news conference spelling out further details is expected today.

CN also says the UCI deplores the ASO's decision to sanction under the FFC.

BikeBiz makes the UCI's deploration the lead point.

The IHT says the Tour is going to have more surprise tests, and will use WADA's computer data. We're not sure about how that last part is going to work without the UCI playing ball.

The Boulder Report's Joe Lindsey doesn't call it a challenge to Astana, but he does have an interesting "suggestion" to the team that he feels might get it into this year's Tour de France.

KPLC TV News in Louisiana posts a report about local cyclists who cleaned up the route ridden with them by Floyd Landis in March. Now the roads are a littered mess again and they are hoping their anti-trash message is taken more seriously.

Bicycle Retailer informs us the Minnesota suit by LeMond against will not be consolidated into the Wisconson suit by Trek against LeMond, per the Minnesota Judge. Unless the Wisconsin Judge agrees to consolidate that case into the one in Minnesota, the litigation expenses for both parties just escalated. Take a whiff -- that is the smell of the earth being scorched.


Mr.galle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whareagle said...

It'll be interesting if someone from High Road or Chipotle gets 'popped', and no amount of screaming from longitudinal tests sways anyone's opinions

("Eightzero") said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
("Eightzero") said...

Can someone plase post the cited "anti-doping contract" referred to in the CN article when it is available? I am *really* curious how this will be worded. Not too sure how French code-napoleon law views penalty clauses in contracts, but under English common law, such things are generally disfavored, if not void. Yes, liquidated damages are possible, but the parties have to agree on some reasonable amount. Not sure how that will be done (both the agreeing and the reasonable part.)

("Eightzero") said...

whareagle, it could work the other way too. Imagine the UCI takes its time analyzing the longitudinal data on the riders it currently deems "suspect." Suppose that analysis takes until...oh, say mid July.

Maybe the mere threat of this happening is sufficient?

whareagle said...

I'm not sure. I keep 'annual' extensive blood tests and about 2 years ago they revealed some anomalies that were borderline for Leukemia. Scared the bejeebers out of me, but follow up tests (and a lot lighter wallet, since 'insurance' didn't cover the extras)showed it to be an anomaly of an anomaly. However, the athlete(s) wouldn't get the benefit of this further testing, or explanations behind it.

I guess my statement was more toward the line of whether management would defend the athlete through the use of the internal evidence, or bag him quicker 'n a sack of potatoes at a Sam's Club, thus negating the supposed advantages of the longitudinal testing. I hope for the former, but suspect the latter.

Either way, the "Perpetual Pessimists" win and the athlete goes down in flames, regardless of the evidence or facts or explanations. No case, no justice, just a good headline.