Astanagate
The Team Chef
15 Comments
1 Reference
One of the reasons I started this site was to provide road cycling fans with a refreshing change of pace from the never ending borage of doping scandals, and exposure to the general chaos that reigns supreme in the sport today. All this drama gets a bit depressing and takes the attention away from the fun stuff – racing. That said, I simply can’t remain quiet on ASO’s exclusion of Astana from this year’s Tour de France, and it appears my take on this matter is not shared by many, at least in the United States.
If opinions on the various cycling forums, websites and blogs serve as a proxy for entire English-speaking cycling community, it is quite obvious the ASO decision is an extremely unpopular one. Pat McQuaid’s comment seems to reflect the general consensus and mood: "Looking at this latest situation with Astana, there is absolutely no justification for the decision that was made. The international cycling public cannot understand why Astana should be singled out as the team who did so much damage to the Tour de France...everybody knows that there were four or five other teams who badly damaged the Tour last year."
Indeed. So, how come other teams with doping skeletons in the closet were not punished, as well - teams such as Rabobank , who remain “largely unchanged themselves from last year after their gross protectionism of Rasmussen's evasions…, ” or Team High Road (formerly T-Mobile), Cofidis, and Saunier-Duval, all of whom had riders testing positive last year? And what about CSC and their confessed Tour winning doping manager, Bjarne Riis; or Milram, with repentant Erik Zabel, or Alesandro Petacchi and his recent misadventures with asthma medication? On and on it goes. There seems little logic behind ASO’s decision.
Johan Bruyneel offered this analysis, should one need further reason to question the motives behind their exclusion: “…Astana Cycling Team 2008 has nothing to do with the team of last year. We have done everything to change the dynamics of the team - new management, new riders, new philosophy. Only the name of the sponsor remained.”
Yet, therein lies the rub – the same sponsor has indeed remained. Astana is the one example of corruption at the very highest level of the team hierarchy; this even after Bruyneel had been installed as the new GM. The evidence has been there for all who would choose to notice and look past the PR efforts to convince us that everything is new and changed.
First, a little history is needed to arrive at this conclusion.
As if any needed reminding, the Operation Puerto doping scandal broke back in 2006. One of the central figures in OP was of course the infamous Manolo Saiz, who was then manager of the Liberty Seguros-Wurth squad. As the outfit imploded with the withdrawal of both title sponsors, the team’s star rider Alexander Vinokourov, decided to take control of the team from Saiz. It appears Vino was well connected to a key player in the Kazakh government, Danial Akhmetov, the nation’s defense minister, and former prime minister. Strangely enough, Akhmetov was also moonlighting as the president of the Kazakh Cycling Federation. The money to run the team soon materialized from a coalition of eight Kazakh industrial entities, which also happened to include the state owned oil, gas, and railroad companies. In essence, Astana was the government owned team of the country of Kazakhstan. A new Swiss management company, Marc Biver’s Zeus SRL, was installed and Saiz’s Pro Tour license was then acquired. ASO was convinced that enough changes had been made, that Astana were in fact a brand new team with no connections to prior management, and they issued the invite to participate in the 2007 Tour de France.
Of course we all know what happened at the Tour last year. Once again the doping bomb was dropped, as Vino tested positive for a homologous blood transfusion after his stage 13 time trial victory. The immediate reaction from the Khazakh Cycling Federation’s deputy head, Nikolai Proskurin, was a harbinger of things to come: "This is politics. Even before the start (of the Tour) the organizers said that if Vinokourov is among the favorites it would be wrong and no good." The insinuation was clear - either a mistake had been made, or someone had framed their star rider. The next day the entire team quit the race at the request of the organizers.
As if the Vino affair wasn’t bad enough, Andrey Kashechkin then tested positive for blood doping in an out of competition sting shortly after the Tour. Earlier in the year both Matthias Kessler and Eddy Mazzoleni got caught with their fingers in the doping pie, which had already added to the team’s ever lengthening rap sheet. As with Liberty Seguros-Wurth the year before, it looked like the team would collapse and the sponsor would call it a day. Eventually both Vino and Kash’s “B” samples confirmed their original “A” sample positives, so it certainly looked like the end of the road for Astana. Surprisingly, the sponsor refused to ride off into the sunset, deciding instead to start fresh by first replacing Marc Biver with Johan Bruyneel, and then by signing Discovery Channel’s star riders, Alberto Contador and Levi Leipheimer – Team Astana 2008 was born from the ashes.
Seemingly forgotten among the all the positive buzz surrounding Astana’s rebranding efforts, which included the anti-doping program of Rasmus Damsgaard, was the final act in the Vino doping saga. On December 6, 2007 a laughable one year suspension was issued for the most disgraceful in-competition doping bust in Tour de France history. Further, the suspension was backdated to July 2007, which would allow the recently retired Vinokourov to participate in the 2008 Summer Olympics this August. This “punishment” was issued by the Kazakh Cycling Federation, aka the Kazakh government, aka the sponsor. Remember, the ringleader in constructing the team’s operating capital was none other than the very president of the Kazakh Cycling Federation, Danial Akhmetov. It doesn’t take much to connect all the dots. For all practical purposes the sponsor had been in charge of sanctioning their own rider, and their ridiculous suspension made it perfectly clear where they stood in the war on doping.
In spite of the horrendous conflict of interest that Vino’s suspension exposed (eight Kazakhs remain on the team), the sponsor was granted a Pro Tour license and allowed to continue on, business as usual. Further, the international cycling community was expected to welcome the “new” Astana back with open arms. After all, with so many financial backers disappearing from pro cycling, we should be supporting those who have demonstrated a true commitment to the sport, right? Does it really matter that the sponsor is tainted and corrupt?
ASO should be applauded for their efforts to make sure that Astana has its house in order before being allowed back into cycling’s marquee event. Should this team have had another incident at the Tour this year, the damage to ASO’s reputation could well have proven irreparable – a one year waiting period seems more than reasonable given the sponsor’s track record.
I won’t be signing any petitions to “Let Levi (and Astana) Ride,” although I do feel sorry for some of the folks caught up in this wreck, particularly Chris Horner. Leipheimer, Contador, and the others should have exercised a little more common sense and signed elsewhere. Why were they all so blind to the huge risks involved in joining this squad?
Here are some final lingering questions: 1) Now that Vino and Kash are gone, why is the government of Kazakhstan so interested in sponsoring the team? 2) What role does Vino continue to play in their financial spider web? 3) Why did the UCI renew Astana’s Pro Tour license? Is sufficient money the only consideration in granting a license, or do ethics play any role at all? 4) Why did so many Astana employees go without pay for so long? 5) Despite building the entire team around inclusion in the Tour, did Bruyneel ever discuss his intentions with ASO? Did he simply hope a Pro Tour license, new drug testing program, and last year’s Tour victor would guarantee the team’s participation? 6) Why did Trek, and the other equipment sponsors, allow themselves to get sucked into this mess, as well? 7) Will Contador get dragged into the Puerto situation now that the case is going to be reopened? 9) Will Vino come out of retirement, having served his whopping one year suspension, right before the Olympics and World Championships?
One thing is for certain - the Astana situation illustrates all too well that professional cycling is in dire need of some leadership right now. What a cluster…
Picture Credits: Pat McQuaid, Marca; Johan Bruneel, Cycopaths; Vino, Reuters; Astana training ride, AFP
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
-
Response: Useless ride statsThe weather is beautiful in the San Francisco Bay Area. The hills are green, the trees and flowers are
Reader Comments (15)
Very nice work.
I struggle to disagree.
But it seems funny to ban riders that have not been found guilty.
Perhaps the sponsor Astana should also have received a ban last year - why not hold everyone involved accountable?
ASO does at a minimum need to develop clearer principles - otherwise it seems targeted and vindictive - why not ban the new and improved T-Mobile for example?
Enjoyed the article
Jean,
Thank you.
Will,
It is quite a shame that innocent riders have to get caught in the line fire. I really don't know that there is a simple way to deal with this. I do remember ASO mentioning they would be possibly excluding entire teams, and this was last summer. Certainly riders like Levi and Contador should have taken this into consideration before they signed with a team like Astana. Kloden also had a chance to get out of his contract, but chose not to.
Part of the problem with this mess involves the timeline. ASO didn't know the sponsor was actually dirty until the Vino "sanction" occured in early December. Certainly the sponsors ethics were in question even before then, as they chose to let employees go for months without pay. All told, I can't believe the UCI decided to issue that Pro Tour license.
Had Vino been given the standard two year ban, I wonder if ASO (and RCS) might have allowed the team back in this year...
ASO itself acknowledges that clear cut guidelines must be established in order for teams to gain an invite. I think we'll see some changes in policy for next year, and everyone will know the rules well in advance.
It is only Astana that has demonstrated corruption at the sponsor level. Stapleton/T-Mob/High Road can't be held responsible for Pat Sink's stupidity.
Lastly, I think Rabobank should be excluded from the Tour, as well. Once it has been determined that management has aided and abetted a doper it is must be assumed there is a systemic problem within the team. ASO may well suffer as much damage from Rabo, as from Astana, should someone test positive at the Tour.
Rabo had "2" teams last year: the old and the young.
They probably knew that the olds were dirty and tried to avoid the contamination of the young.
Rabo fired Rasmussen when TDF requested it.
So Rabo had acted correctly even if his DS was dirty. They have even published a state of the Rasmussen's affair. They have not pushed under the rug their problem.
Have you seen so for ASO ? No. Just one year ban for Vino! How trust them?
I don't think that the decision to exclude Astana is that unpopular, even among English speaking fans. OK they are frothing at the bit over at the Paceline, understandably so, as that is home ground. But elsewhere there aren't a lot of voices actually being raised in support, certainly not among forum regulars: People just can't be bothered going through the same arguments yet another time. Go back and count not the number of posts on either side but the number of posters, and the situation is a hell of a lot more even than you make out.
And when you read that letleviride has 35,000 odd signatures but many over at the Paceline have signed up their whole family, right down to the dogs and goldfish, then I reckon that there ain't much of a movement behind the little guy, and probably even less over at contadoraltour.com
Nice blog, keep it up.
Jim,
Yes, lately the forum posts have filled with considerable Astana and Levi backlash.
Here's one you'll appreciate:
http://www.deraileduk.com/letlevicry/
Oh, and believe it or not, some of the Paceline folks have linked to this article, so there is hope that the truth in this matter will receive a wider audience.
ASO need look no further than themselves for blame in the Vinokourov/Astana scandal. It's important to look at the kind of company ASO is and their history as well as the specifics of the Vinokourov and OP situation which you described pretty well.
Your suggestion that ASO was betrayed by Astana doesn't hold water. ASO knew Vino wasn't clean. But they invited the team anyway because Vino always put on a show. ASO gambled and lost and it was a bitter pill for them to swallow, but they continue to refuse to accept any responsibility for contributing to harming the sport. And there's the rub, ASO is a company that puts on a spectacle more than real athletic competitions per se.
American fans are absolutely correct to condemn ASO, even if it is more out of defense of their favorite team than because of knowledge about the workings of ASO.
Here in France, no one, and I mean NO ONE, defends ASO. Why? Because they know the truth, or at least diehard French cycling fans do. The people who tend to defend ASO are those who are furthest from what's going on here. The same holds for l'Equipe. The praise comes from those who really aren't familiar with the newspaper.
A big problem right now is that cyclingnews and velonews don't have anyone based in Paris and haven't been doing a particularly good job of covering a lot of this.
Suffice to say that one needs to be careful before applauding a business like ASO. That they would invite Vino despite believing him to be dirty is an insult to honest competitors everywhere, as well as to cycling fans. Few non-French news outlets would nail ASO on this anyway even if they knew the truth because who wants to lose their media credentials?
As an aside, look up "Dr. Mabuse" on wikipedia if you are not already familiar with him. This guy was at the 2007 Tour route presentation in Paris, invitation in hand!
CF,
I have absolutely zero media connections either here in the US or in Europe. I am simply a confused and frustrated fan who has pieced together a story from available English language sources.
Everything you say may be true aboout ASO; I certainly have no way to refute any of your claims, although I would challenge you to provide evidence to prove ASO knew Vino was cheating prior to his positive test. If provided, I would be happy to post the information on this site.
That said, nothing changes one simple fact - the Kazakh Cycling Federation (KCF) suspended Vino for only one year.
My primary reason for writing this article was make sure that other cycling fans were aware of the connection between the sponsor and the KCF. This conflict of interest is almost never mentioned when discussing Astana's Tour exclusion, and it should be.
Well, I guess you could claim that ASO is ignorant and don't read and watch the media, including their own (Amaury/L'Equipe) signature cycling publication, Velo Magazine. But of course that seems highly unlikely. The magazine's expert on performance wrote that Vino's performance in the Vuelta was not humanly possible without medical assistance.
It was further reported that when Saiz was caught, he was on his way to the Alps to help Vino train. Vino also admitted working with Ferrari.
If ASO were concerned about ethics, they never would have extended an invitation to Vino's Astana team given the above and more evidence, however circumstantial it may be.
My point is that ASO isn't concerned about ethics. But since they do a lot of talking about ethics, they deserve to be called out on it.
I certainly agree with your comments about the KCF. Sadly there is corruption throughout professional sports, including cycling of course. Doping is rampant in French amateur cycling but no one wants to talk about that. And what of the story of one of the top French pros in recent years, now retired, giving pot belge (cocaine, heroin mix etc.) to a young French amateur? The story was quickly suppressed. So my point is that just as actual doping positives are only the tip of the iceberg, so are actual stories of corruption. There are cycling fans blogging on the internet who while passionate about the sport don't understand that this will NEVER end. Never. The incessant dragging of the sport through the mud will kill it. Then people can watch professional snowboarding I guess.
No single rider, or team or national federation can ever be as guilty as the hypocritical powers that be responsible for looking the other way. That is fundamental in my opinion.
CF,
Thank you for your perspective. I was hopeful that the article would stimulate some intelligent conversation, and it certainly has.
I suppose on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially in this era of "a new clean sport," invites to Caisse d'Pargne, and Rabobank should also be reconsidered; there is plenty of smoke arround both Menchov and Valverde, a sure sign there is (or was) a fire somewhere nearby.
I'm sure ASO's ethics probably extend as far as most big businesses, which is to say not very far.
Sadly, the culture of doping is probably going to be with the sport for a very long time, and as you suggested, maybe forever. The Cahors trial, and in particular the incident with the beloved
Jalabert and his pot belge party, is thoroughly disgusting. Unfortunately, not a huge surprise given the teams for which JaJa rode. The affair certainly illustrates the depth of the problem, as these junkies were shooting up in the off-season for purely recreational purposes. I hope the story is all a big hoax, but I fear that is not the case.
Lastly, I agree that the brunt of the blame for institutionalized doping, especially since the early 90's, must be born by those who have governed and organized our sport. I hope it's not too late to right the ship.
I agree that the whole Vino thing stinks, but the fact of the matter is that everyone was operating within the rules. Besides the doper of course. So, I think that if the ASO or anybody else wants to change the rules they certainly can go through the system and do so. Instead the ASO are obviously driving for a separate league with their own rules that will most likely not protect the rider's interests. I will not defend the ASO because they are completely self serving. As for the UCI, I genuinely believe that they have the rider's interests in mind, but may resort to an "Ends justify the means" mentality to win the war.
AF,
Nothing that has happened, or will happen, between the UCI and ASO is ever going to change the egregious actions of the Kazakh Cycling Federation (Astana) in regards to Vino's sanction.
This is simply not a UCI vs. ASO issue. The sponsor is dirty, has demonstrated so, and should suffer the consequences.
Whether you are a fan of Astana's riders, Johan Bruyneel, or support the UCI in their fight with ASO, I don't see how one can back a corrupt sponsor who has so flagrantly spit in the eye of the efforts to rid the sport its cheaters.
I disagree. This is an ASO vs UCI issue. While the conduct of the Kazakh Cycling Federation is deplorable, I don't think the ASO really cares. This is their excuse to begin the process of cutting ties with the ProTour and the UCI by using your emotions about Astana. The ASO never liked the regulation imposed on it, and has been systematically testing the boundaries. The ASO does not make the rules and can not apply them selectively. Just as vigilantes are not tolerated in a civilized society. Although equating the ASO to vigilantes is way too generous as there is no altruism.
This is not to diminish the Kazakh Cycling Federation egregious acts and your great article laying out its politics. I would also suggest that we be equally enraged with the conduct of the French Cycling Federation, which is obviously influenced by the ASO. How is this so different to Astana's influence in the Kazakh Cycling Federation?
In the end I am a fan of the riders. Unfortunately these battles will hurt them. Whether it is Levi, Chris, or other clean Astana riders not allowed to ride the Tour or the French riders who may not race the in World Championships and the Olympic Games, we should be equally outraged.
Well done. May I add that abscent from your post is the fact that Johan Bruyneel hired Ivan Basso when all other tour teams Directors made a gentleman's agreement to not hire anyone named in OP. Bruyneel thumbed his nose at the other directors and proclaimed that he will hire whoever he wants. I can't help but to think that Astana's exclusion from this year Tour is a revenge move to put Bruyneel in his place. Your thoughts?
Rich,
I think Bruyneel really sealed Astana's fate when he took the position, hired Contador and Levi, and arrogantly assumed that ASO would feel compelled to invite them. I can only read between the lines, but it appears that discussions were never held with Prudhomme, Clerq, or anyone else at ASO, prior to consummating Johan's contract. Why? I suspect that Bruyneel received assurances from the UCI (McQuaid) that as long as a respected drug testing program would be installed Astana would be "guaranteed" a spot. Obviously,the riders bought into this con job, as well.
Bruyneel's hiring of Basso, and more importantly his long standing relationship/connection to Armstrong, certainly didn't help Astana's chances.
Of course, the final nail in the coffin was slammed into place when Vino was slapped on the wrist by the KCF for his blood doping positive.
Revenge for Bruyneel's past sins? Possibly, but Astana's actions only made it all too easy for ASO to act on their ill will towards him. I can't help but think if JB and Astana had gone to ASO very early on, with their tails tucked firmly between their legs while pleading their case, they'd have gotten the invite.