Discovery out of AIGCP = L.A.M.E

I especially like Bruyneel saying "We need to become a unified group for our sport to reach a higher level " ... I assume he means genetic "enhancements".

From cyclingnews.com

<i>Discovery Channel pulls out of AIGCP
Discovery Channel announced that it is removing itself from the International Association of Professional Cycling teams (AIGCP), a decision based on the meeting amongst 19 of the group's ProTour members last week in France.

"The AIGCP was designed to represent the collective interests of the sports top teams, however, the group has struggled to unify and agree on their objectives," read a press release from the team.

Sport Director Johan Bruyneel added, "I no longer feel confident that this group can lead our sport and represent our Team in a positive manner. It became clear at our most recent meeting that the goals and objectives among the teams are very different and I do not want to continue to be a part of such contentious and unprofessional meeting.

"We need to become a unified group for our sport to reach a higher level but everyone is not willing to do that and AIGCP President Patrick Lefevere is not to blame. He has shown great leadership and insight while presiding over this group, however, the same cannot be said of all members."

Last winter the team came under fire from the International Professional Cycling Teams (IPCT) for hiring Ivan Basso. The members voted to remove the team from its group. In December, it stated, "Discovery Channel didn't respect the rules," a participant of the meeting said. "The ethical code is clear: a ProTour team should not sign a rider involved in the Puerto affair." membership was threatened to be removed.

During last weeks AIGCP meeting, representatives voted unanimously that any of the teams who have not respected the Code of Ethics would not be allowed to race in the Tour de France.</i>

That's a confusing, or purposely misleading article. It quotes Bruyneel as saying the organization isn't unified, and he quit after last week's meeting. Then it says "During last weeks AIGCP meeting, representatives voted <i>unanimously</i> that any of the teams who have not respected the Code of Ethics would not be allowed to race in the Tour de France." If the vote was unanimous, that means everyone, including Discovery, voted for it. The article seems to imply that Bruyneel quit because of the vote, but obviously it must have been something else not mentioned.

The article seems to imply that Bruyneel quit because of the vote, but obviously it must have been something else not mentioned.

Didn't Disco, Saunier and Casse d'Epargne (all with OP implicated riders) walk out of that meeting? Maybe there was a unanimous vote, just not everyone voted?

well, you could vote for the code of ethics to save face and then whip up another excuse for leaving the group so you don't have to abide by that code. He doesn't say what the specifics are that made him quit-maybe just a trumped up reason? A lot of OP refugees still on Discovery but this must make getting a new sponsor hard. Bruyneel really acts like a sleezy guy.

Didn't Disco, Saunier and Casse d'Epargne (all with OP implicated riders) walk out of that meeting? Maybe there was a unanimous vote, just not everyone voted?

Bernaudeau and Boyer left the meeting in disgust w/ the prevaricating of the Puerto-implied teams.

from cyclingnews.com:

<i>The meeting started with all 19 ProTour teams (Unibet.com was not invited). Discussions were lively according to LePoint.fr, and Bouygues Telecom (Jean-René Bernaudeau) and Cofidis (Eric Boyer) left the meeting before it concluded. The remaining representatives voted unanimously that any of the teams who have not respected the Code of Ethics would not be allowed to race in the Tour de France.

The French paper went on to report that if by next Tuesday, when the UCI will meet with AIGCP, Caisse d'Epargne, Saunier Duval and Discovery Channel (due to their riders being allegedly involved Operación Puerto) do not uphold the ethics agreed upon, the other teams will quit the AIGCP and create a parallel association.</i>

I'm also unsure as to what this means re. ASO. They have been pretty clear they reserve the right to exclude those riders they feel will "tarnish" the reputation of the race (cough, cough... leaving aside the multiple times that riders of questionable "performances" have been allowed to race -- from Thevenet to Pantani and from Riis to Armstrong) and they have been equally clear that a link to Puerto was sufficient for them to exclude riders. So does this mean that Discovery will be excluded <i>en bloc</i>... and if so, does Unibet get to fill in the gap? This stuff is better than the best soap operas!

I'm also unsure as to what this means re. ASO. They have been pretty clear they reserve the right to exclude those riders they feel will "tarnish" the reputation of the race (cough, cough... leaving aside the multiple times that riders of questionable "performances" have been allowed to race -- from Thevenet to Pantani and from Riis to Armstrong) and they have been equally clear that a link to Puerto was sufficient for them to exclude riders. So does this mean that Discovery will be excluded <i>en bloc</i>... and if so, does Unibet get to fill in the gap? This stuff is better than the best soap operas!

My offer to drive the team car for you still is open. It looks like there is going to be a lot of activity between now and the Grand Depart in London. Given how Disco performed in last year's Tour, being excluded may be a blessing in disguise -- the team could cover over all of its deficiencies by playing the French card -- claiming that the team was the victim of anti-US prejudice -- and then Disco could fade into oblivion at the end of the year. I always have thought that Mr. Hincapie was a little lacking in gray stuff between the ears, but his recent discussions with with the boys in Magenta may show that he knows exactly where things are headed for Disco.

BTW: The French card is so Chirac-era. But, maybe the Disco folks don't know yet that there is a new occupant in the Elysee Palace.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=MarkS]My offer to drive the team car for you still is open. It looks like there is going to be a lot of activity between now and the Grand Depart in London. Given how Disco performed in last year's Tour, being excluded may be a blessing in disguise -- /QUOTE]

It's hard to imagine anyone trying to sign a new sponsor would voluntarily give up an invitation to THE event that is most important to almost any sponsor b/c it dwarfs all other cycling events in terms of exposure.

If he screws this up what sensible company would invest in his team?

I can't imagine Bruyneel giving up a slot in the TDF. That's way too extreme. On the other hand, if a guy who has won it seven times is willing to walk away from it to make a point, what does that say about the event? It's like Nixon going to China. Bruyneel has the standing and the credibility to make a real statement. About what, I'm not so sure....

What do you want to bet none of the Disco riders will sign the UCI's new anti-doping pledge?

Stripped of the golden veneer of Armstrong's success, Bruyneel is looking more and more unsavory. No wonder he's having to go to the ends of the earth (pro-cycling-wise, I mean, no disrespect intended to China) to find a new sponsor.

I can't imagine Bruyneel giving up a slot in the TDF. That's way too extreme. On the other hand, if a guy who has won it seven times is willing to walk away from it to make a point, what does that say about the event? It's like Nixon going to China. Bruyneel has the standing and the credibility to make a real statement. About what, I'm not so sure....


Yeah it would seem like the whole Basso fiasco would pretty much negate any possible stance Bruyneel and Disco might like to take on behalf of "implicated" riders.

About what, I'm not so sure.... ...yes

Perhaps Bruyneel is upset that he has riders named, threatening his TDF chances, yet there remain dozens of unnamed riders still left in the original OP scandal that aren't being released and don't appear that they will be released. Even with the other sports and athletes such as Zidane linked with OP there's still likely dozens of unnamed cyclists that may be riding the TDF.

I would be pretty pissed off if I were Bruyneel as well.
Spanish cycling is covering its rear end very well here. What's going on in Spain is shameful, really. If they had any intent of cleaning up the sport, they'd have taken an active interest in speeding up the investigation, not stalling it.

I would be pretty pissed off if I were Bruyneel as well.
Spanish cycling is covering its rear end very well here. What's going on in Spain is shameful, really. If they had any intent of cleaning up the sport, they'd have taken an active interest in speeding up the investigation, not stalling it.

You really think the problem Bruyneel has is that OP isn't getting resolved fast enough?

It seems a hell of a lot more likely that Bruyneel (and Caisse d'Epagne & Saunier Duval) want business as usual or at least as usual before last year. That is, short of a failed dope test or an arrest, they want to protect the riders.

It certainly doesn't seem as if Bruyneel is siding with the guys who are looking to resolve OP by demanding DNA tests, etc.

Why wouldn't he want it resolved as soon as possible? Every time he goes to a race now, the race organizer or the UCI or the AIGCP or whoever will demand he remove riders. That makes it tough to compete, and does nothing but generate bad press.

I think it is far more likely that Bruyneel, like most people in cycling, wish the OP thing would be finished, one way or another. (How can it have dragged on this long?) Until it does, there is far too much uncertainty in cycling and far too much gossip and sensationalism about it, and that is not a good thing.

Why wouldn't he want it resolved as soon as possible? Every time he goes to a race now, the race organizer or the UCI or the AIGCP or whoever will demand he remove riders. That makes it tough to compete, and does nothing but generate bad press.

I think it is far more likely that Bruyneel, like most people in cycling, wish the OP thing would be finished, one way or another. (How can it have dragged on this long?) Until it does, there is far too much uncertainty in cycling and far too much gossip and sensationalism about it, and that is not a good thing.

Agreed. The longer it drags on the worse it is for him and his team and it appears that some teams are paying a higher price than others. I don't necessarily think Bruyneel has the best interest of cycling in mind, just his team.

Why wouldn't he want it resolved as soon as possible?

Because of Paulinho, Davis, Contador and possibly others?

The quickest partial resolution is for the teams to all agree to demand DNA samples from their riders and then work out the legal bugs to do a comparison with the blood in Spain. This appears to be what Gerolsteiner is calling for. I don't know what reports you're reading but it seems pretty clear that Disco is trying to protect implicated riders not clear up the mess.

I think it is far more likely that Bruyneel, like most people in cycling, wish the OP thing would be finished, one way or another.

I don't disagree, the problem appears that Bruyneel's way is the old way. That is, OK we can sweep this under the carpet like always since the Spanish judicial system seems pretty much apathetic about it at this point. I don't doubt this is what the UCI wants as well.

The problem is there appears to be enough team's that believe they have clean riders or perhaps more cynically non-implicated riders that want the dopers caught and suspended so they won't let it go. And since there is a pretty obvious means to confirm implicated riders, why not do it?

The quickest partial resolution is for the teams to all agree to demand DNA samples from their riders and then work out the legal bugs to do a comparison with the blood in Spain.

I was a bit disappointed when I read the "volunteer" aspect by the UCI. It should be MANDATORY for all the riders to submit DNA and have the financial downside of the years salary.

There's plenty of guilty folks in pro cycling but I don't think they're yet properly motivated to really do it. These baby steps towards a solution are simply too small. Head on collision needed.

I would be pretty pissed off if I were Bruyneel as well.
Spanish cycling is covering its rear end very well here. What's going on in Spain is shameful, really. If they had any intent of cleaning up the sport, they'd have taken an active interest in speeding up the investigation, not stalling it.


Contador, Paulinho for Disco, then there is Valverde for Caisse, who was implied from Saunier?

One thing Bruyneel said is right - that they need to be united. Not even the UCI really wants anything resolved at this point. If riders told how they knew when out of competition tests were going to be done whom do you think they would name?

Because of Paulinho, Davis, Contador and possibly others?

The quickest partial resolution is for the teams to all agree to demand DNA samples from their riders and then work out the legal bugs to do a comparison with the blood in Spain. This appears to be what Gerolsteiner is calling for. I don't know what reports you're reading but it seems pretty clear that Disco is trying to protect implicated riders not clear up the mess.


- Davis was "Cleared" (whatever that means these day's) today, and both Paulinho & Contador were declared the same a long time ago I thought. :confused: