Today's decision by the Court for Arbitration in Sport to suspend Spanish grand tour ace Alberto Contador for two years (backdated to the 2010 Tour de France from which the violation arose) has officially thrown Team Saxo Sungard into licensing chaos. So far the information consists of a cryptic gnome-translated quote at Sporza by a UCI official who says that the Licensing Commission will look into the matter, and that if you subtract Contador's share (68%) of the team's points cited in support of its 2012 license, they don't meet the criteria for the World Tour.
This creates the bizarre spectacle of a team getting booted from the top level of competition while it is already underway for failing to predict the outcome of a proceeding that has taken two reversals of fate and more than 500 days to complete. Let's just lay out the pros and cons, and I'll leave it to you guys (and the UCI) (shudders) to determine what's right.
To the flip!
Pros: Contador's points for the last two years have been deducted from him, and the world Tour formula calculates the sporting eligibility criterion by adding the team's riders' individual points from the last two years to the team's collective points from the previous year to determine their score for this year's license. With Contador's points, Saxo-Sungard are a shoo-in; without them, they're apparently a shoo-out. Rules are rules, and making exceptions is inviting disaster.
[The big "if" here is, if the UCI has a clause that allows them to rescind licenses after making the offer. IOW, Saxo-Sungard qualified at the time they made the decision. Do they have to stay qualified until the day the license expires? Or is it like a nightclub, where once you get past the bouncers it doesn't matter how old you really are?]
As for the team, it brought in Contador about a month before the announcement that he had tested positive during the 2010 Tour de France. In that sense they can't be held responsible but they stuck with him throughout the proceedings rather than exercise any out clauses available. They happily gobbled up those UCI points despite the cloud hanging over Contador, and something like 99.9% of the reason for their loyalty had to do with the fact that it was Contador, the surest point-scoring bet on the planet.
The rules clearly punish teams for standing behind riders whose relationship to doping is uncertain. In other words, the rules really discourage having anything to do with doping. That's good, right?
Cons: The drama of seeing a rider of Contador's stature results in an extreme example, where a single deduction can flip the entire team's application. Compare to, say, Vacansoleil hiring Zeke Mosquera, who brought little to the team besides a second place in the Vuelta (nothing to sneeze at, of course), and whose exclusion didn't threaten the entire squad's existence. Surely Bjarne Riis, in assembling the squad, built enough around Contador to know where his points came from, and so he walked out on that ledge, hand in hand with his new captain.
But what else is one to do? Particularly once the Spanish Federation cleared Contador, he was free to ride. Even the Tour de France agreed with that assessment. Should Riis have looked for a contractual exit despite the apparent exoneration of the generation's greatest talent? Should he presume guilt even in the face of a finding of innocence?
Moreover, should Riis put his team's license in jeopardy, risking the loss of yet another major sponsor from the sport, at a time when cycling needs all it can get, because he took the word of every official organization in the sport last spring?
Next: we wait. Any change to Saxo-Sungard's license would result in a lot of plans changing. As the home of Nick Nuyens, their spring invites would go unchanged if they were bumped down to Pro-Continental (presumably they can't land any lower with their remaining 32% of past points). Their grand tour invites would be completely up for grabs, but they would remain eligible. I suppose each race which hasn't already issued its decision on invites would be free to put one more spot up for grabs, and ask Saxo to apply. For those like the Giro which has made its announcements already, I doubt there is a clear answer right now on how they proceed.
Photo by Bryn Lennon, Getty
0 recs | 150 comments
I hate the idea of a license being yanked once the season has started.
majope - February 6, 2012
absolute bollocks
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
And booting Saxo now, and granting another team WT license, is even putting that new team in disadvantage. Cause they already missed one WT race!
holmovka - February 6, 2012
its just one race, only 5-6 riders earned "good" points.
Sponsor expectations is the one I worry about. There are not many non-cycling related sponsors in our sport.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
What a fracking mess. Sigh.
bdr - February 6, 2012
Actually, fracking is an entirely different mess.
But quite horrible.
SpaceGuy - February 6, 2012
And a much more serious mess in the scheme of things.
sminer - February 6, 2012
this is true.
bdr - February 7, 2012
I think from a pure sporting perspective, Team Saxo Bank should get relegated.
However the timing and the circumstances makes such a decision uncomfortable for me. There are a lot of variables and each of the parties (Riis, Contador, UCI/WADA and CAS) have contributed to these, however in the end it is Riis job to run the team on the basis of the rules of UCI. Whatever UCI decides, I once again hope they will look into changing the points allocation model to at least try and minimize the risk of a similar situation occuring in the future.
The current model for ranking teams makes it very hard to run a business/cycling team at the top level of our sport. A great deal of the problems comes from the fact most points travels with the rider. This approach offers perfect boom and bust opportunities, sometimes pushing team leaders to make risky and often Irrational decisions. I believe the sport can avoid some portion (not all) of this boom and bust by having a more balanced team versus rider points allocation rule.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Let's not forget the part played by the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC)
in this farce.
I agree that the team point allocation rule is in need of modification.
Holdenmate - February 7, 2012
yes, in particular RFEC (it was getting late last night, ran out of juice)
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Best outcome IMHO
is the UCI says that while they reserve the right to pull points, they will choose not to do so after the season has started for which the license was previously issued except in extreme circumstances (i.e. team-orchestrated doping or something). So Saxo carry on.
This may not be the best for all of cycling, but it’s clearly the most stabilizing route for the UCI to choose.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Agree 100% with Chris.
UCI should do this at the end of the Season!
holmovka - February 6, 2012
+1
majope - February 6, 2012
they need to start giving the
“stabilizing the sport” part a bit of consideration.
This case is a rather extreme example of doping controls gone mad to the point of being suicidal or at least masochistic. A top rider, one could say “the top rider” in the sport, while winning the biggest race in the sport (sorry phil), fails a test for a let’s say one of the milder doping substances at a rare lab that could detect the extremely minute levels in his system – at most labs we’d have never had this issue at all. In addition, this substance can be found in common food. It’s rare in europe now, and it’s not likely it got into his system by a spanish steak, but it’s not at all impossible either – and depending on your point of view, not even implausible. Not only all that but the whole process is so clumsy and long that the racer rides for an entire year, winning another one of the grand tours in grand and dominant fashion. And now finally we have the tour de france and italy with retroactive results that nobody and i mean nobody believes in – not even the new winners.
What a joke. The sport is making itself into a joke.
I just have a hard time seeing what cycling is gaining by being so anal and draconian. Do you have to absolutely ban everything, regardless of other considerations? Do you have to have zero thresholds? Strikes me as some sort of crazy self-destructive puritanism.
A little reason might go a long way.
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
Zing
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Well said.
At very fucking least, the retroactive stripping of an entire season of results that had nothing to do with the recorded offense and put a team in danger of losing its license after letting him race in good faith after an exculpatory decision is absolute bullshit.
I tend to agree on the puritanism point too. There is a real way in which the non-enhanced athlete is a mirage created by this whole system where we decide what is and is not ‘enhancing’ in an ‘unnatural’ way. But that’s another story.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
I think I've been trying to say this for about a year
it just took me about 3000 times as many words, much less eloquence and tact, and far more run-on, incomplete and poorly executed sentences.
I agree.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Top rider has nothing to do with it, IMO.
The lab which ran the tests on these samples is one of many used by all sorts of sports throughout Europe. If there was a problem with food contamination, one would think that there would have been other clen positives popping up by now. My understanding is that this more sensitive equipment is being rolled out into more and more labs as well, though I do not know the where and when for all this.
The real problen was the RFEC let Contador off with NO penalty at all, not even the loss of the 2010 TdF victory. That is clearly and incontrovertably outside the governing rules which say no athlete can keep a result from an even in which he/she tests positive. Contador’s positive cannot just be ignored. Anyway, after the ruling by the RFEC, Contador was free to ride and the UCI and WADA had no option but to appeal to CAS. The delays can be blamed on all the parties.
It is an interesting process WADA goes through each year considering the possible changes to the Code. Is it fair? I think for the most part it is. It is a tough life for high level athletes who compete on the world stage.
Ice
Ice Nine - February 6, 2012
yup
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
whoops,
meant to say more than that.
Well, not much more. contador cheated. Of course there should be some penalty for this. Cycling really would be making itself into a joke if it said now “you know what, let’s forget about this PED stuff, inject what you want”. And anything between “do what you want” and “we’ll punish you whenever you cheat” is just begging for arbitrary and inconsistent justice.
The villain here is not the UCI, it’s the spanish fed.
Wastrel - February 7, 2012
+1
Winnar.
Holdenmate - February 7, 2012
Look at it from the race organizers point of view ...
… without Contador is Saxo really worth an auto invite?
Ice
Ice Nine - February 6, 2012
Flanders, yes
Giro no. Tour… hey, it’s still Riis Cycling. They’re what, the second-longest-standing team now?
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Vuelta,
Yes!
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
You forgot: Saxo is a Danish team, the Giro starts in Denmark, that should be enough for an invitation
LittleOldLady - February 7, 2012
How are you holding up? This is all horrible news.
Seahorse - February 7, 2012
Thanks for asking, better than expected,
but I will not play the VDS this year, I have kind of lost the feelings for that.
LittleOldLady - February 7, 2012
Oh no! I hope we'll still see you around though?
Seahorse - February 7, 2012
Oh yes, I will be in my usual dark corner :)
LittleOldLady - February 7, 2012
It's not as dark as you think. I nearly always know when I can call you :)
Seahorse - February 7, 2012
Vacansoleil and Skil-Shimano didn't get Giro invites two years ago
And that Giro not only started in the Netherlands, said start was partly financed by public funds (maybe the Danish start is too).
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
yes, but Rabobank was the calling card.
And yes there are public money involved with the Danish start.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
The situation for the teams riders is troubling
but really, perhaps Riis shouldn’t have blown such a large chunk of his budget on someone with an unresolved positive test hanging over his head?
William H - February 6, 2012
Riis didn't know Contador tested postive when he signed the rider.
Riis signed Contador just after TdF 2010.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
And I admire the way he didn't throw Bert to the wolves.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
to me
this is where the conundrum lies. At some point you throw a guy to the wolves, but nobody can rightly say that Riis had a clear choice here.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
even if he wanted to do it, he couldn't. It would have bancrupted the business.
Even now it may be difficult (read costly), because technically CAS states Contador didn’t dope, so it will depend on the finer details of the employment/rider contract.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
CAS upheld the WADA Code in this case ...
… so I think technically CAS did say Contador doped.
Ice
Ice Nine - February 6, 2012
no, they said the positive came from contaminated supplements and thats where
the laywers will end up fighting, if Contador was terminated from his employment contract, i.e. you think its for cause and others will see no cause.
The diff when firing somebody is substantial.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
I haven't read the entire CAS document ...
… but I think they talk about most likely scenarios. When I get the time I will read the whole thing rather than just skim it.
Ice
Ice Nine - February 6, 2012
I wish you good reading.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
I found it ...
489 Consequently, the Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping violation as defined by Article 21 UCI ADR, and it remains to be examined what the applicable sanction is.
The preceding paragraphs explain how they arrived at this finding. CAS has almost always ruled to the letter of the regulations/rules and this was no different.
Ice
Ice Nine - February 6, 2012
yes, it is a violation of the Wada code, but there will be people
who can argue (or should I say enjoy arguing) using the contaminated supplement statement.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
the ironic beauty of the CAS decision
is it allows all the “innocent” believers and all the “he was a doper” believers to carry on regardless
andrewp - February 7, 2012
and hence lawyers will argue to death in courts
if Riis terminates Contador for cause (offering him a couple of airline tickets as a parting shot).
Uphill - February 7, 2012
argue that riis has cause - he be banned
specialized and other companies where more about image rights etc decision probably still helpful, but maybe not as much.
andrewp - February 7, 2012
No, they didn't say that
And I believe they actually wrote that it wasn’t meant to be interpreted that way. They compared three different scenarios; tainted beef, blood transfusions and tainted supplements. Out of the three tainted supplements were the most plausible because there are known cases (they used Jessica Hardy as an example).
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
ok, but my point is that this looks almost like a negotiated
deal. Neither WADA’s bloodtransfusion nor Contadors beef story was likely (according to CAS) and hence they came up with another solution: Contaminated supplments.
I think laywers can argue over this as part of a employment suit.
Perhaps the Iljo Keisse ban helped CAS along the way as well.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Both UCI and WADA brought forward the idea of tainted supplements
Basically, Contador claimed tainted beef. UCI and WADA said “we find that highly unlikely, and even if we don’t have to we will present two other scenarios” (not an actual quote).
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
ok, so WADA didn't buy the beef story, knew the court may not
like the bloodtransfusion drive and came up with an alternative cause: contaminated supplements.
I think people/lawyers with argue the difference between getting a bloodtranfusion and getting hit by contaminated stuff endlessly.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Reads like "fig leaf" to me, as well.
R Mc - February 7, 2012 via mobile
I have to believe
that Riis’s contract lawyers are smarter than that. Ie, that they would write the contract to be “a doping conviction,” which as of today, would be what Contador has.
Jen See - February 6, 2012
for sure, but employment laws in Europe are quite tough. As an example
lets use the Michael Rasmussen case. He was thrown out of TdF and dismissed by Rabobank. Then he got a two year doping ban for violating the whereabout system. Michael Rasmussen then took Rabobank to courts and won EUR1M. Rasmussen didn’t think that was good enough and have appealed to higher courts. Case is pending.
In comparison, Contador didn’t test positive on Riis team and due to all sorts of issues with the case, “fulfilled” his obligation on the team last year and at the beginning of this year (and he could return in August to ride some more). Now with the CAS verdict Riis finally have a case which he could use to terminate Contadors contract for cause, but I don’t think its plain sailing. One thing is clear, it is cheaper to fire him now, than at any other point since he was employed.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Employment laws not so tough
he cant can Contador. Almost obliged to for survival.
Contadors earnings power took a very big hit as a result of the decision and the new points rules (arguably in a much more dramatic way than they would under any such proposed breakaway league or if the rules were revised)
andrewp - February 7, 2012
Earnings power?
Tevez will still earn £200K/week moving forward, Valverde will get his fair share of the dosh and I bet Contador will very quickly be back at around EUR3-4M/year perhaps even more.
Employment laws not tough?
Compared to what?
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Football (NFL, all big clubs in large franchised sports)
not the best comparison. There the only imperative is to win matches, score points, stay in the league/qualify for end of season tournaments. If you can score goals etc, and the club can afford to pay you then all OK on your comeback
Cycling rules and budgets mean other things also important. Contador now only can come back to a team in the way he left if team can afford a huge salary and dont need the points – a very small group. Contador may still earn squillions on his comeback but the proportion of that that is salary almost certain to plummet.
Employment laws most countries allow you to sack a sportsman found to have breached the rules of the sport, as written, and thus get banned from it – especially if the team had any kind of a nous when drawing up the contract.
andrewp - February 7, 2012
If a rider offers the sponsor the best exposure, they will pay
regardless of point system. Sponsors don’t care about point systems. Contador will be back earning the exact same as he does today within a very short space of time. Perhaps already in 2014.
So as a result of the current points system, Contador is likely to only be able to return to one of the elite few teams. That will do wonders for the competition.
I can only refer back to the M Rasmussen case when it comes to firing banned sports people. He got EUR1M and wants more. Don’t think its as plain vanilla as you describe.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
rasmussen not banned when he got fired iirc
and Rabo effectively told could have fired him even then, just did it wrong procedurally.
Not arguing in favour of the current points system per se, just that JV twitter stream and elsewhere implies not going to be that many changes this side of end of season/next round of licences – so presuming deals will all be done accordingly. The definite cost implications of having an expensive superstar and trying to stay world tour under current rules = exactly the predicament Riis finds himself in. Assuming no other change, the only thing than can give is Contador’s cost to maintain the status quo.
(And the rich team(s) that may want him/afford him already have GC contenders of their own, other considerations. As Cav and Phil found to an extent there are very few options around if you want to be a very well paid superstar)
andrewp - February 7, 2012
a point system revision should not be put in place to
rescue Riis WT license, rather I thing they need to find a system which tries to minimize the boom and bust cycle which can influence teams in the future.
We will have to see where Contador ends up. Regardless I think he will get payed very well.
Re Ramussen: there are always issues when terminating people on long term contracts.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
It's not that Riis' ass needs saving
He can fry, for all I care. Letting the team keep their license for this year is justice for the Takashi Miyazawas and the Troels Vinthers of the world who signed with a team they thought would get invites to the world’s most prestigious races.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
well, they signed knowing that Contador
could be banned.
But otherwise, I agree this is about the riders.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
No. They. Didn't.
August something or other, 2010: Contador signs.
September, 2010: positive test announced.
They didn’t know.
Chris Fontecchio - February 7, 2012
Not sure I'd be that categorical.
Need to look up the date when Contador was informed to keep his mouth shut about the positive by UCI . . .
Also need to wonder about how much back-channel rumor sourcing Riis would pursue as part of due diligence.
R Mc - February 7, 2012
In the CAS file
It was said he was informed on August 24 or something like that, 3 weeks after it was announced that they signed him.
Though more to the point, “they” in this case was Miyazawa and Winther.
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
yes, my ref was about the two riders.
They knew the risk coming in.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
OK
even there, do we know that’s true? I mean, if Contador was getting transfusions, then he knew he had a risk of getting caught, but if you mean he knew about a positive, I’m not seeing it.
Chris Fontecchio - February 7, 2012
OK
then you should take into account when the actual contract deal was sealed too, which was probably in late July.
Chris Fontecchio - February 7, 2012
"...because technically CAS states Contador didn’t dope..."
Hmmm, maybe we have different definitions of “technically”
sminer - February 6, 2012
make no mistake, I think he doped using a bloodtransfusions, just don't
think terminating Contador will cost next to nothing.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Oops, sorry
I see you’ve already been busted for that one, don’t mean to pile on.
sminer - February 6, 2012
Riis sure didn't hang on to Basso after his OP connection became public.
I would be surprised if Riis did the same with Contador because he has built the team around Alberto. What is he going to do with al those Spaniards on the payroll? bigallyoureggsinonebasketgrins
Ice
Ice Nine - February 6, 2012
Basso and the moment
way more toxic than this case, unless you rate all positives the same.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
zz
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
That was a complete accident!
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
i thought
you were saying you were bored, heh heh
yeehoo - February 7, 2012
Well I was, but I promise that in spite of that the zzz was unintentional.
Seahorse - February 7, 2012
Oooh, an new variation on the traditional Seahorse!
That’s a Seahorse with a double-backflip, half-pike, zz! Very rare.
I score it 7.9
omnevelnihil - February 7, 2012
7.9? Bastard! 8.5 at least.
Seahorse - February 7, 2012
Can't be seen to be playing favourites.
;)
omnevelnihil - February 7, 2012
The Spaniards on Riis team are not high earners, they are just helpers like
90% of the peloton. If he didn’t have those, it would be another set of helpers. It makes no difference.
By far the biggest part of Riis budget is Contador. Getting rid of him without cause would have probably cost Riis 2 x year salary or perhaps EUR6-7M at the time. Business couldn’t have survived.
Basso was in trouble but more importantly he was low cost compared to Contador. Riis business could have survived a lawsuit from Basso, if he tried for unfail dismissal.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
and
I don’t know if he could have survived by backing Basso. How many teams did OP take down?
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Hmm
I think it is more that the way the sport, law, and teams are handling doping cases has evolved – in part because of Puerto. I remember that Riis was furious with the UCI at the time of the Puerto case, because they were saying that he couldn’t race Basso, but Riis couldn’t stop paying him. Remember there was at least one case, and maybe two, where riders won their salaries and damages after their teams suspended them, refused to pay salaries, and then the cases came out in their favor.
I think Riis decided to race Contador like there was no tomorrow, because he was legally obvligated to pay him. So why not get the sponsor exposure while he can, and worry about the sanctions in the future?
With the way CAS decided this case – ie, Contador can race again in August – it was a pretty smart gamble on Riis’s part.
Cynical, yes. But he got the exposure from the Tour and Giro wins for his sponsors, and Contador will be back racing in August in time to win another grand tour. True, the history books now say he didn’t win the races since the doping positive, but that doesn’t matter much when compared to the sponsor exposure Riis picked up from thsoe wins.
Jen See - February 6, 2012
Unless of course he loses his license this year or next...
…b/c not only can’t he claim the points Conta earned last year racing but he also can’t claim the points Conta will earn in the year he comes back from his suspension, if I understand correctly.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
LOL, yeah
But I bet Riis is making hay while the sun shines – because you know, he signed Contador before he knew this shit was coming his way. So, he’s just trying to come through it, you know?
Hmm, bet they don’t pull the license, but hard to know, when it comes to the UCI, really.
Jen See - February 6, 2012
He really didn't have any other choice, as far as I can tell...
…but yeah, I think pulling the license would be the single most destructive thing the UCI could do in this instance, which means…
Oh crap, this could be bad.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Could well blow up in UCI's face if they strip Saxo
If that wouldn’t spur the teams towards getting a new organization I am not sure what would.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Yep.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
yet would argue
considerations about a possible breakaway league should be the furthest thing from their mind when making such a decision – it should be decided solely as a licencing matter
andrewp - February 7, 2012
if the ranking system was done differently and transparent
no one would be able to blame UCI in a case like this. Now with a group of backroom boys doing the talking and decisions, speculation will thrive.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Now I'm confused
do I admire Riis or not?
sminer - February 6, 2012
Well
You love his smile.
Chris Fontecchio - February 7, 2012
agree, this would have been the plan, but I am also pretty confident,
Riis would have preferred a different set of cards if he had a choice.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Man that seems like a lifetime ago
I read your comment and my initial reaction was “When did Riis have association with Basso?”
Took me a second to remember that the height of his career came with Riis’ team.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
As someone who doesn't think AC is 'pedal dancer extraordanaire'
I’m going to ponder this for a second before I completely disagree with admiring Riis.
sminer - February 6, 2012
The UCI is insane if it yanks Saxo Bank's license
I get its point. Saxo Bank doesn’t meet the sporting criteria. Remedy it next year!
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Vaughters
Vaughters is asking twitter if people think the teams association should oppose a move to strip the license, so there’s a hint of the next step in this thing…
https://twitter.com/#!/Vaughters/status/166692636579725313
Jen See - February 6, 2012
Glad to see him using twitter to fight a good fight.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Nice hint
You can bet that there are a lot more animated conversations along these lines happening in private.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
The funny (strange) thing is
CAS basically exonerated Contador from intential Performance enhancing doping.
They flat out rejected transfusions.
They really seem to believe it was a contaminated supplement.
BTD - February 6, 2012
So...
The guy’s infraction was while riding with a different team.
New team didn’t know about it when they signed him.
They sign him, find out this infraction is hanging over him.
Stand by him during the “process” and race him once his fed clears him to ride.
Now, after everything is said and done, they might have their license by having lived within the rules.
Nice. Why aren’t sponsors flocking to the sport?
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
and let's not forget
that, as far as i know at least, the uci told contador not to tell anybody about the positive for a while. they created this problem.
ant1 - February 7, 2012
I didn't know that. Bloody hell. I think I might try to become a fan of cricket.
I’m getting desperate.
JustJoshinYa - February 7, 2012
There are lots of bribery and betting scandals in Cricket.
You never know quite who really won.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
I have heard Spelling Bees are pretty entertaining...
JustJoshinYa - February 7, 2012
if you think those are dope free...
you’re in for a rude awakening my friend.
ant1 - February 7, 2012
I thought the whole point was the dopes lost early, right?
I mean, I was usually out in the first round and I am pretty sure I am a dope.
JustJoshinYa - February 7, 2012
These things we know:
1. This entire case was handled extremely poorly. That it took 500-odd days to reach a verdict that is basically a straight reading of the rules – around which there shouldn’t have been much debate in the first place – is a crime. The way the ban was applied and the results stripped… all of it is baloney.
2. It would be total bullshit for the UCI to yank a license after the season is underway. Gosh, what sponsor wouldn’t want to sign up for that kind of treatment?
3. The points system is fundamentally, deeply flawed.
4. BUT Riis had to know that this was a possibility. All of last season, he was staring down the barrel of this gun, and the ax could have and should have fallen much earlier than it did. It was irresponsible of him to put all of his eggs in the Contador basket. He can’t be blamed for racing Contador – what other choice did he have? But he needed to also be racing other riders on his team to win points, or buying up points in the offseason, or both.
5. AND there are “sporting criteria” for a reason. Without Contador, what does Saxo have? Nuyens, Haedo, and a handful of solid domestiques? Is this really worthy of a WorldTour spot? I think not. I’d rather see another team with more to bring to the table out there racing, and Saxo invited along where they have something to contribute.
6. There is no winning here. No one wins.
downdog - February 6, 2012
+1
Except for the following statement I pretty much agree with all you wrote. “The way the ban was applied and the results stripped… all of it is baloney.” After reading the CAS decision, it all makes sense in a crummy sort of way. CAS generally follows the rules/regs to the letter and I think they did as well as they could with the sanction.
Ice
Ice Nine - February 7, 2012
4.
Not sure. He didn’t know at the time he signed Contador. Then he knew there was a positive. Then the Spanish Fed said he was cleared. Now, today, he knows.
Chris Fontecchio - February 7, 2012
But if Riis, after the fed's decision
Didn’t ask someone with good enough knowledge (perhaps he relied on Jens Evald from Anti-doping Denmark, but he seem to be quite… eh… stupid), perhaps the appeals from UCI and WADA should’ve given him a clue that the ruling perhaps wasn’t all that good and that there was a possibility that CAS would overturn it. At least give other riders more of a chance to score points.
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
With the roster Riis ended up with in 2011, only two other riders
could realistically have earned points of some significance: Larsson and Porte. The rest of the team are just 1 (perhaps a couple of two) pointers. With the point system as it is (points travelling with the riders), I believe Riis tried to find out if these two riders would stick around in 2012. As we found out they both left, so one could say in hindsight not banking on them was perhaps the only solution available.
Rather, I think Riis banked on getting 1 or 2 “real” points earners to the team in the transfer season. He failed to do that (for various reasons), and he most now live with that situation.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
I agree, Riis was/is in a pickle.
And for what it’s worth, I think my point #2 rules all here – once a license has been awarded for a season, it’s not fair to revoke it after the season is already underway.
That said, Riis kind of put himself in this pickle. Sure, he didn’t know Contador had a positive test when he signed him. But I think everyone knew the Spanish Federation ruling was weaksauce and there was a decent chance of it being overturned. And there’s another big management flaw here – he let his team become very top-heavy, spending so much of his budget on Contador that apparently he didn’t have much room for anyone else. I scanned through the VDS listings this year, and had a hard time finding another team this top-heavy. Even if none of this doping business had ever happened, Contador could have had a big crash in his first race of the season last year (or this year…), broken bones or blown a knee or something, and been done for the season. Riis would likely be in a similar predicament, if not for this season then certainly for next season. Given that so much can go wrong with any given rider in this sport, it seems really irresponsible to put the fate of your team so heavily into the hands of one rider.
downdog - February 7, 2012
agree, but Riis didn't voluntarily end up with only one top class rider in 2011.
Cancellara was on a contract for 2011 and there was a budget for him along with Contador. Now Cancellara ended up defaulting on his contract in late August 2010 leaving Riis with a significant hole in the team. How do you find a replacement for Cancellara in September 2010? Its almost impossible. So while I agree, it is Riis responsibility to sort these things out, circumstances left him in a very difficult situation.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Agree with most of this. Riis is the top dog and he needs to take the responsibility.
4. I know Riis tried to sign points earners during 2011, but as the Contador case was hanging over the entire team it was very difficult (quite a few teams were looking to beef up their rankings). If I was a rider with options in the market, I would not have signed with Riis knowing that Contador could be banned.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Pardon the irony, but…CAS.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
The season started already
Yanking a license at this point, regardless of it being a ramification of Contador’s action, is ridiculous. If CAS couldn’t return a verdict by the start of the season than there shouldn’t be a penalty, that’s my view.
agl - February 7, 2012
There are two issues: moral and pragmatic.
On the moral side, I think there’s plenty of room for debate whether Riis should have stuck with Contador or not, and whether this ‘punishment’ is deserved.
On the pragmatic side, however: this is all Riis’ fault for being an idiot. If the sponsers are angry, be angry with themselves for giving their money to an idiot. He built a team in which 68% of the points they won came from a single rider, with the remainder insufficient to warrent a tour place. In a sport in which drugs bans, not to mention season-crippling injuries, are an occupational hazard, resting the entire existence of his team on a single pair of shoulders, even if he personally believed that they were clean shoulders, is idiocy.
And as I said before, we shouldn’t obsessively see these issues as ‘punishment’ and ‘guilt’. Look at it practically. Should a team be given invites to a whole heap of races automatically, when they don’t have anything like enough talent to be able to have an impact – and, in the process, should we NOT give automatic invites to a team that’s better than they are and more likely to provide interesting racing? I don’t think the RACES, or indeed the FANS, should be punished as a result of Contador’s ban. If Saxobank aren’t good enough to compete, they shouldn’t have an automatic right to compete. Their spot should go to a better team. I don’t see how “this is unfair, I know we’re crap but hypothetically if our drug-taking rider hadn’t been banned he could beat you all, so even though he has been banned we should be allowed to compete, because if he hadn’t been banned, which he has been, his drug-taking would make us one of the best teams so even though we’re not one of the best teams, we should be treated as though we were one of the best teams, because otherwise we’re not being rewarded for having our drug-taker on our roster, which we should be, because it’s not our fault that we was a drug-taker, so you all have to treat us as though he weren’t a drug-taker and as though he hadn’t been banned” idea.
What’s going on isn’t punishing the team, it’s recognising the facts as they stand: they do not have Contador, and no other team has contador either. They seem to want to be rewarded by being extra points for choosing to employ contador – the points that contador DIDN’T score, but WOULD HAVE scored (and that we thought he’d scored) if he hadn’t been a druggie. How would that be anything approaching fair? An analogy: you can’t sell me stolen goods. Once the goods are traced, I lose them. That might suck for me, but I don’t get to say “I didn’t know they were stolen!” and get to not have to hand them back to the person they belong to. Riis may not have known they were stolen goods, but he knew he was getting 68% of his goods from one shady dealer – he can’t look too aggrieved when that dealer gets busted and people want their stuff back.
Wastrel - February 7, 2012
The sponsors Saxo Bank are not angry and they do not consider Riis an idiot, on the contrary they like him very much and put him in high regard.
During this whole case they have said that they sponsor the team because of Riis and that it does not matter what happens with Contador.
After the verdict they have said the same, and added that they feel sorry for Contador, they like him personally and they do not believe that he doped.
Personally I do not like the sponsors, but that is a political thing, they are right-wing and I am left-wing (and I know this is not the place for politics). BUT I am very happy with the way they are about the team and Riis, only wish they did not have a politic about only giving sponsor-money for one year at a time, it would be a lot easier for Riis if he knew he was secure for a couple of years.
LittleOldLady - February 7, 2012
They may not care about Contador himself, buuuuuuut…if the Danmark Rundt is the biggest race to which the team gets invites, that’s kind of a problem for the sponsors.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
Oh I very much agree
If Contador does not resign with Riis and if the team is thrown out of the pro tour I think Riis will get to the point where he has had enough of all this circus and the team will fold.
Maybe then he will concentrate on the team he is setting up in Italy with U19 riders.
LittleOldLady - February 8, 2012
Just one comment.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
But the realistic choice
in your practical scenario is a deep team (up to whatever middlin budget Bjarne has) or a shallow team with Alberto Freaking Contador! Easily the most valuable rider of his generation, the Gilbert of the Grand Tours (when all of the cycling industry actually pays their bills). On both the economics and the competitive side, who in their right mind doesn’t want Contador? Then after he signs a problem comes up… well, by then you’re committed.
Chris Fontecchio - February 7, 2012
Oh, sure. He had reasons. He went for the high-risk high-profit option.
But as I see it, the downside of high-risk high-profit is that when the risk turns bad, you aren’t going to get much sympathy. He didn’t choose to employ someone that was going to be banned – but he chose to build his team in a way that left it extremely vulnerable to just one or two screwups. If no screwups occured and his team was very succesful, he’d have taken a lot of credit – but now that screwups have occured, that surely means that he takes a lot of blame as well.
Ultimately, even if it isn’t fair (which I think it is), that’s sport for you. Sports teams frequently suffer or rejoice on the backs of cruel and unusual circumstances. To me, dealing with such misfortunes is part of the point of sport. I don’t think the teams need to be protected against serendipity, much less against the fruits of their own risk-taking.
Wastrel - February 7, 2012
yeah, well...
I just don’t think the teams themselves thought of Contador as a risk. It’s true, building around him is a form of vulnerability, i.e. one broken collarbone, but even there Contador had very little difficulty since his early scare.
Chris Fontecchio - February 8, 2012
Speaking of the one year sponsorship contract
Will they renew next year? Words are cheap, but in the current climate I imagine a lot of sponsors are regularly reviewing all of their sponsorships (not just cycling).
It also seems to me that it’s a lot easier to just not renew a sponsorship, than actually to withdraw it.
Retancourt - February 7, 2012
They've been iffy before but like Riis I think they are pretty hot on the idea of winning the TdF with Contador
My guess is they will stick around, Conta stays and Riis rustles up as much cash as he can. If they don’t manage to get enough cash to sign riders with enough points to earn a 2013 WT license they don’t sweat it but go ProConti. Contador alone pretty much assures them entry to at least 2 GTs and enough smaller races and then they rack up the points in 2013 for a return to top level in 2014. After they get a Tour win with AC is when I think Saxo may be looking to leave
Jens - February 7, 2012
Where do they rack up points toward their license in 2013?
Contador’s won’t count until two years after his return.
majope - February 7, 2012
Damn, there goes that theory, I had one year in my mind
(which I suppose is only half of 2013 anyway..)
Then they are doomed to ProConti unless they get a major infusion of cash.
Jens - February 7, 2012
Possibly from Spain?
Seems to be a lot of indignation over Contador’s ban—perhaps that includes some people with sponsorship money.
majope - February 7, 2012
For the moment people in Spain have no money, nearly as broke as the Greeks
LittleOldLady - February 7, 2012
For the first time in 18 months (or so), the management of Riis Cycling
knows all the details and have a good understanding of where they stand. Now they need to deliver. Could be a merger with another team, could be relegation or it could be expansion. They have enough time to show they can get it done.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
I'm convinced they're bolting
They can’t bolt yet – even Geox had to wait until the season ended – but as soon as they can bolt, they will.
I’d be very happy for them to prove me wrong.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
Or...wait, _can_ they bolt now?
Saunier Duval ditched Giannetti in the middle of the 2008 season
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
I would assume the contract dictates that the money stays but the name could leave...
So, if SexyBack didn’t want their name to remain plastered all over the backs of this team now…they could do it…but their promised funding would remain. Although…if the contract was written that it is for a ProTour team??? I guess it could get sticky which is why the governing body shouldn’t put teams/sponsors into this situation. It’s ridiculous.
JustJoshinYa - February 7, 2012
the sponsor contract would probably allow for some movement in case of loss of
WT license. Anyhting from terminating the deal to lowering the funding to getting on with business are all possibilities.
Uphill - February 7, 2012
Eurosport will show the press conference tonight
1930 cet. Perhaps feeds will pop up.
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
Streams at Sports-livez
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
Saxo Bank twitter about the case
Saxo Bank twitter
among a lot of uninteresting twitters they have these three interesting ones, about the Team and Contador:
Twitter 1
Twitter 2
Twitter 3
LittleOldLady - February 7, 2012
Live feeds at Sports-livez are live now.
majope - February 7, 2012
Press conference should start any minute--they're doing background stuff now.
majope - February 7, 2012
Bert at the table.
Of course, there’s a very good chance I won’t understand any of it…
majope - February 7, 2012
Intro guy is speaking English...
majope - February 7, 2012
Good. So is Riis.
majope - February 7, 2012
watching ES?
their paris lot will be giving harmon translations
andrewp - February 7, 2012
Couldn't find it.
majope - February 7, 2012
will do my best then
andrewp - February 7, 2012
Riis is speaking English anyway.
majope - February 7, 2012
Riis: case going on far too long, harmful to cycling, the team, and AC
majope - February 7, 2012
There's a post on the front page now
TheFigurehead - February 7, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Podium Cafe to post a comment.