Astana have even removed the cheat from their website already!Keith Oates said:Not really suprised and must congratulate Astana on their actions. Perhaps McQuaid saying Astana should be allowed in the Vuelta was not such a bad call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
alecstilleyedye said:maybe if vino lifts the lid on exactly how much the team astana management knew, then it could blow the idea that the teams can pretend to know nothing out of the water.
the blood transfusion probably came as a result of the performance loss caused by the injusry incurred early in the tour. if that's the case, i cannot see how this was done without the team's knowledge and compliance.
the other two who were done for tesosterone could have self-administered without the team's knowledge or consent.
I agree with this. I think that many teams who so the whole sacking of naughty boys thing, are merely 'flag waving', to keep the media happy though. Not convinced that they will actually do anything about it in the majority of cases or they'd be left with no team! I think it's the relatively few cases that draw huge media attention and force them to act on these particular individual cases, when in reality there must be loads of others in the team who escape attention still continue to dope.gavintc said:For a long time, I have been convinced that the heart of this problem is the team. If the team management take a strong anti-doping policy, the problem is reduced. But, I argue, when the rewards to both team and sponsor are so large, it is not surprising that they will turn a blind eye/provide tacit support.
Not sure if I, or the PR men, would agree with this. THere are some companies who don't want to be tainted by scandal but I've read in the business pages that Rabobank are more than happy with their Tour. Rasmussen generated loads of publicity as the yellow jersey, then generated even more with his 'where's Wally' routine and then Rabo get positive publicity by kicking him out. Wall to wall coverage for two weeks.alecstilleyedye said:i actually think the sea change will come once sponsors realise that a "win at any cost for us" mentality could result in awful, scandalous publicity (as rabobank can tell you). corporate pressure will come in the form of "don't drag us into a doping scandal or else…". i, personally, think that if sponsors had a get-out clause in the sponsorship contract if a team's rider fails a b-sample test then the pressure would really be on the teams to put out a clean squad. and how could the team argue against that clause if they are keen to be clean (to coin a phrase)?