Unless Vino threathened to harm his family or something (which maybe he did, we'll never know), it's not Vino's fault, it's the one who accepts the bribe that is at fault.

People will always be tempted, it's accepting that temptation which is incorrect and un-sportsman like.

My 2p obviously, I don't necessarily fault others for their points of view.

Incroyable!!

So by analogy, if someone hires a hitman to commit a murder, only the hitman is at fault, not also the person who hired him(her)?

Not sure if I was understood there.

I was saying if Vino was applying pressure outside of the immediate situation (simple, guaranteed financial gain), then yes, what he did was terrible.

If it was simply offerring of cash for losing a sprint that Kolobnev didn't believe he'd win anyways, then no, it's part of the game. Not a pretty part of the game, not a part of the game I condone, I don't think it's right at all, but it's part of life.

You're claiming the acceptor of the bribe is at fault, but not also the offerer of the bribe. So it's "part of the game" to offer a bribe, but not "part of the game" to accept a bribe?

In this context, yes. I highly doubt you could ever erradicate the tradition of buying results on the road in cycling. There a bigger battles to fight at this point in time.

Is it the fault of the doper, or the person who offers him the dope?

If I had no legs left, I'd take a bung to let a breakaway companion win. Easy money.

I'd also make that I'm disappointed that I didn't win to make sure that the winner thinks he got value for money.

Waste of time investiging this. Shouldn't the UCI be checking seat angles or something more important?

They should both be banned for life and all winnings returned. And the race made null and void like every other race at the minute . I wonder how much Vino paid for his olympic gold.

IMHO I don't think Vino bought that. They were going so damn flat out there was no chance to even converse and I think Vino would've dusted him in a sprint anyways.

Kolobnev was an interesting thing though as he definitely has a good sprint on him after a long race. A 3rd at the 2009 Lombardia ahead of a select group comes to mind.

1 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Silence - Lotto 5:43:45
2 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi
3 Alexandr Kolobnev (Rus) Team Saxo Bank 0:00:07
4 Luca Paolini (Ita) Acqua & Sapone - Caffe Mokambo 0:00:08
5 Johnny Hoogerland (Ned) Vacansoleil Pro Cycling Team
6 Robert Gesink (Ned) Rabobank
7 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Astana
8 Daniel Martin (Irl) Garmin - Slipstream
9 Juan Jose Cobo Acebo (Spa) Fuji-Servetto
10 Cadel Evans (Aus) Silence - Lotto
11 Leonardo Bertagnolli (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni-Androni Giocattoli
12 Christopher Horner (USA) Astana
13 Ivan Basso (Ita) Liquigas
14 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - N.G.C

I really think we are getting into some pretty esoteric ethical questions here.
What about if a breakaway all agree to split the primes so they can make the workload more efficient and less combative ? Isn't that a financial agreement that influences the outcome ?

I really think deals are, have always been, and should be one of the intrigues of cycling. NOBODY can bribe an entire peloton, you still have to have the power to be a factor in the race before you have the power to deal. Big name riders will always sacrifice lesser wins for help on big races. How is that different from a "bribe" ?

I do oppose radios, because that makes the dealing too academic if the teams can all negotiate for lengthy times over radio. But the individual riders talking ....how can anyone stop that ?

Whats the point of calling it a race if it's a predetermined outcome. When a GC contender lets a lesser rival win for his help, is a lot different to a bribe in a one day race .

A lot of people are saying that this is not a big deal and it's been happening for ages. That doesn't make it okay. Surely anyone with even a remotely well tuned moral compass can't say that this is okay. Like artray says it's a race. I want to watch a race, not American reality TV.

How's paying someone off with a stage win so different from paying someone off with a check?

Well why bother having team mates . In a GC race there is nothing stopping any of the main contenders from attacking . If a GC fav gets away from his rival and catches a rider up the road and they work together
for mutual benefit thats part or racing and using tactics . Paying off the only rider who can beat you in a one day race is very different.

Maybe Kolobnev reckoned that he couldn't beat Vino so he didn't have (much) incentive to cooperate with him.
Maybe Vino reckoned that he couldn't win without Kolobnev's help.
So Vino pays Kolobnev to give him incentive to work for mutual benefit.
You could say that it's part of racing and using tactics.

How can you feel good about getting a victory by handing over the cash . What is it worth to pay that much for a win. Does it make financial sense. If it does then the ony reason to take the money is because your legs have gone and you may as well get something.