Contador's team could be thrown off World Tour
Alberto Contador's Saxo Bank-Sungard team could be thrown out of cycling's World Tour after the Spaniard was given a two-year doping ban by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
"The UCI will today ask its Licence Commission to issue a ruling on whether the Saxo Bank-Sungard team should retain its place in the UCI World Tour," a UCI statement said.
"If the points obtained by Alberto Contador, representing approximately 68 percent of the Saxo Bank-Sungard team's total points, are disregarded, his team would no longer be considered to fulfil the sporting criterion required for the UCI World Tour."
The Danish team is run by Bjarne Riis, who won the 1996 Tour de France but later admitted to doping during the race.
Contador was stripped of one of his three Tour titles and banned for two years by CAS on Monday for failing a dope test during the 2010 race.
The 2007, 2009 and 2010 Tour winner, widely regarded as the greatest cyclist of his generation, tested positive for the banned anabolic agent clenbuterol.
The 29-year-old could also lose his 2011 Giro d'Italia title as well as all his other victories last season and will not be able to take part in either the 2012 Tour or the London Olympic Games.
Comment 6 - 25 of 25
Simon,not everyone was doped in the 90's.. Chris Boardman wasn't.. Just a pity he couldn't stay on his bike in the peloton.
If Saxo Bank booted it will make a mockery of the season and will detract from Evans' second TDF title as, although Berie banned, Riis' team could have caused him problems.
Why don't they just do something similar to motorsports, i.e., give both the riders and the teams seperate points? For example, if a rider wins or places, (s)he gets X number of points and the team gets the same
Simon & Unchained Malady: many thanks. That explains it.
The points system sucks. Points should be earned by individuals but a % (lets say at least 60%) should stay with the team. That way is a rider leaves the team (for whatever reason) then they don't plumit to the bottom. This also stops newly formed teams being ranked #1 without 1 pedal stroke. Sponsors are also more likely to commit for longer if they know they have stability Valuable supporting riders who are essential to the team are paid to be supporting riders and not also have the extra pressure to pick up low level points just to keep their points rating up.
Contador, whichever side of the fence you take, its wrong to penalise an entire team and peoples incomes over 1 individual. The UCI need to modernise or be replaced, they are killing the sport more than the dopers.
I'm not a Riis lover but I find it hard to cast judgement when in his era he was doing the same as everyone else.
The points belong with the riders, if the teams kept the points what would riders do when they wanted to change contracts ? Start afresh ? Perhaps the UCI should consider tweaking its system and placing a cap on the number of points any one rider can contribute to the total required, that might also mean better quality teams overall but could hinder the bringing on of young promising riders who need to gain experience and don't have the points yet. Maybe the points could be divided between a rider and the team he rode for when he was credited with the points, 50/50, and require teams to have 50/50 split in team/rider points required for qualification. That way crappy teams could not buy in just one big name to get on the pro-tour.
And who is 'The Team' is it the sponsors, the managers and staff, the riders & their contracts, or the capital equipment set-up, all of which are changed regularly. When a team goes up for sale what is on the inventory ?
@roz i think it's because the riders take their points with them when they change teams
That would take care of Contador for the year.
If a team needs a certain number of points from the previous season(s) to be eligible for the World Tour, how can Green Edge and, last year, Leopard-Trek be eligible as neither had any points? What am I missing? I don't understand why Green Edge outrank Europcar and others. Help!
I despair at the number of thumbs up for comments by people criticising the people trying to keep our sport clean, and the thumbs down for the people pointing out the consequences of cheating. And we wonder why the rest of the sporting world gazes upon us with suspicion? Also, I can't be the only person who thought riis was taking a massive gamble, risking losing his whole team by taking Contador on. And yes, it would be harsh on the rest of the team, but if they don't have enough decent riders among them to get the points, then they aren't good enough to be there.
Astana are a real issue!
another example of the UCI having a half witted idea ........ transferring points with the rider, How does that give either a team or a sponsor any security??
Saxo team could lose licence for 2013, not for this year, because he now have pro tour licence. IF Contador wins Vuelta they could get licence for 2013
The practice of having rider points go to their new teams is the issue here. It trivializes the efforts of the team and the management. That is the problem here. It should be weighted in some way. Honestly, Astana should be feeling some of the pain with this.
Hey Pete, one is British, the other Aussie and a French.
The ruling on Saxo does seem a bit harsh but may have benefits for the sport long term, the people with most power in the sport are actually the sponsors who provide the financial lifeblood. If teams see their sponsorship disintegrating as a result of doping related sanctions, they will start to think twice about using dope to boost rider performance to get better sponsorship, it's a bit 'chicken or egg' but I think the sponsors are becoming very wary of involvement in anything with a drugs taint particularly if their product is not cycling related. Termination clauses triggered by drugs offences within a team will weigh very heavily against any risky gains from doping. A teams 'bird in the hand' of current solid sponsorship might prove worth more than the 'two in the bush' of increased sponsorship from tainted victories.
Is final victory the most important factor for sponsors or is it exposure for their brand ? As far as last years TdF is concerned I think the sponsor who got best value for investment was Europcar.
Another thing worth looking into is whether their is a link between the incidence of doping within a team and the length of time remaining on its sponsorship deal, maybe sponsors who keep teams 'dangling' with regard to renewals are exacerbating the problem.
# alan g: I think that you raise a very good point. Why should Saxo Bank be penalised for something that did not happen under their stewardship. If any team should face sanctions for AC's doping it should be the team he was riding for at the time of the offence. I know people have strong opinions about Riis, and I am not going to comment on those, as they are not relevant to the AC case, only in as far as maybe did it take a cheater to employ a cheater? But, to punish the Saxo Bank riders, who have done nothing wrong, and AC never tested positive for anything as a Saxo Bank rider, just seems injust.
the problem with this is that the team AC was with when he was tested was Astana
It's not a witch hunt or a vendetta against Riis or Contador. It's purely the consequences of cheating. They have both doped and been caught so stop bleating about 'fairness'. Is it fair that clean riders like Wiggins, Evans or Voeckler should have to almost die whilst trying to catch Bertie or Vino or Valv Piti or Scarponi ? Stop whining, they know the rules.
This is a witch hunt lead by dictators, they are the ones who are poisoning the sport, not the riders, this is a disgrace
Please login to post a comment
Not already a Yahoo! user ? Sign up to get a free Yahoo! Account