JV talks, sort of - Page 222 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2211  
Old 11-06-12, 14:51
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregga View Post
In Tyler's book, Zorzoli is the one who meet Hamilton at UCI headquarters and tells him he may have "received a blood transfusion from another person". Strange story, as Hamilton never did homologous transfusions. Did Verbruggen "make a positive" after Armstrong call ? Did Zorzoli know anything about it ? I wouldn't trust this kind of guy who obviously was "part of the problem"...
Thanks for that - haven't read Tyler's book. I noted that despite the embarrassment caused to Hein & Co by giving those test results away - he was only sacked for a couple of months before coming back.. so must have been a goto man for them..
Reply With Quote
  #2212  
Old 11-06-12, 15:05
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
That's not what is being said.

Millar is saying that Wiggins lashed out at the critics and doubters and that this lashing out is what clean guys do.

Armstrong used to lash out at the critics and doubters too.
Yes. See 2007.

More realistic "clean" position than Saint Dave proposes. Compare & Contrast.

What the post above says.

Last edited by Ferminal; 11-06-12 at 15:11.
Reply With Quote
  #2213  
Old 11-06-12, 15:07
Mrs John Murphy's Avatar
Mrs John Murphy Mrs John Murphy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Stamping on Cadel's dog
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
So you accept Clean riders would lash out. But then go on to say, very fairly, that cheating sociopaths lash out too.

In which case does that not simply prove 'lashing out' has really no evidential value on the issue - which rather spikes the guns of those who have gone after Wiggins for precisely that?
Not really because that isn't an argument I made.

I was clarifying who I believed the reference to Wiggins lashing out, was against - the fans rather than the dopers. Ferminal was under the impression that Wiggins was lashing out against dopers. (He did lash out against dopers in 2008, however, he now seems very reluctant to lash out against dopers). Draw your own conclusions as to why in 4 years his position about dopers seems to have changed...
__________________
Justcycling

...girls and ****ed 'em at school. All I know is that there were rumours he was into field hockey players

"the only thing worse than reading Cycling News is talking to them" Paul Kimmage

"The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so." Gore Vidal

Last edited by Mrs John Murphy; 11-06-12 at 15:14.
Reply With Quote
  #2214  
Old 11-06-12, 15:14
hrotha's Avatar
hrotha hrotha is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom375 View Post
Thanks for that - haven't read Tyler's book. I noted that despite the embarrassment caused to Hein & Co by giving those test results away - he was only sacked for a couple of months before coming back.. so must have been a goto man for them..
He was also involved in the cover-up of Contador's positive.
Reply With Quote
  #2215  
Old 11-06-12, 15:14
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
Not really because that isn't an argument I made.

I was clarifying who I believed the reference to Wiggins lashing out, was against - the fans rather than the dopers. Ferminal was under the impression that Wiggins was lashing out against dopers. (He did lash out against dopers in 2008, however, he now seems very reluctant to lash out against dopers).
"But if it were confirmed that he was doping in 200910, then he can get ****ed, completely"

"So I'm ****ed off that Lance has done what he did; it feels as if he's disappeared and I have to answer all the questions. That really, really annoys me. And where is he? Halfway around the world, doing this, that and the other. But we are the ones in this sport today who have got to answer all the questions."

Yep, having a go at the fans, right there.
Reply With Quote
  #2216  
Old 11-06-12, 15:31
skidmark skidmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,853
Default

One thing that I've seen alot of from the more cynical members of the forum (sniper and DW are the two that come to mind immediately) is a critique centred around 'that sounds like PR', which is hard to prove or disprove. But the underlying assumption seems to be that PR and truth are somehow mutually exclusive. I wonder why this assumption is made - I mean, in the example of Garmin and Sky, it makes total sense to me that Millar and Vaughters would proactively say decent things about Sky if they thought it was true. Good PR is focusing on the good that's happening in the sport rather than trying to solve the problems through the public eye.
Reply With Quote
  #2217  
Old 11-06-12, 15:42
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
Not really because that isn't an argument I made.

I was clarifying who I believed the reference to Wiggins lashing out, was against - the fans rather than the dopers. Ferminal was under the impression that Wiggins was lashing out against dopers. (He did lash out against dopers in 2008, however, he now seems very reluctant to lash out against dopers). Draw your own conclusions as to why in 4 years his position about dopers seems to have changed...
Maybe because since 2009 a certain section of the fans have turned on him? Because in his cofidis days 'fans' barely bothered him, and dopers ****ed his life up.

Whereas in 2012 the dopers aren't ****ing his life up anymore (except the La story), but 'fans' are now bothering him with contant rumours of doping?

You know, if you can put the conspiracy cape down for two seconds, you could actually see a perfectly sensible, consistent explanation - he rants at those people currently annoying him, making his own life hard. No great anti-doping crusade pre 2009 - no great doping conspiracy since. No more, no less than a guy with a foul mouth who swears at whoever is currently ****ing him off and/or making his life hard.

pre-Beijing - His own team's doping has f**ed up his tour - he rants about them, and dopers generally.

2009 - life's pretty good, olympic glow, best ever tour, Lance the superstar is being nice to him, and fans are generally positive - doesn't rant much

2011-12 - he does well on the road, the dopers no longer f***ing him over personally, but 'the ****ers' have now turned on him bigstyle, and hound him over doping, making his life difficult - he gets ****ed off and he rants at them - clinic gets panties in a twist

2012 - Lance story explodes once and for all; as patron, he's constantly asked about it - LA has now pised him off (see his quotes) - he rants about having to answer for lance, and now in this extract at Lance himself.

2012 - finally, and rather bathetic, he can't just have a pizza without 'fanboys' pestering his wife - so he rants about them too.

Now I've no idea if that's the truth -seriously, i don't - but it is at least as likely any of the wilder stuff i've read here. Man with low patience threshold (i think that is undeniable) lashes out at whatever is annoying him at that moment.

no more, no less.

I will repeat for the hard of understanding - i have no idea if he doped post 2009. none. nada. if he did, f*** him out.

But i have to say, in the rush by some to 'prove' his badness, a lot of clinicians tend to ignore rather obvious and simple (occam's razor) explanations in favour of wilder ones that support their pet theory.
Reply With Quote
  #2218  
Old 11-06-12, 15:52
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
One thing that I've seen alot of from the more cynical members of the forum (sniper and DW are the two that come to mind immediately) is a critique centred around 'that sounds like PR', which is hard to prove or disprove. But the underlying assumption seems to be that PR and truth are somehow mutually exclusive. I wonder why this assumption is made - I mean, in the example of Garmin and Sky, it makes total sense to me that Millar and Vaughters would proactively say decent things about Sky if they thought it was true. Good PR is focusing on the good that's happening in the sport rather than trying to solve the problems through the public eye.
I think PR & BS are usually understood to be interchangable terms for the same thing. Yes i suppose PR can focus on the truth element but even then by its nature tends BS about it to make it better!
Reply With Quote
  #2219  
Old 11-06-12, 15:54
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hrotha View Post
He was also involved in the cover-up of Contador's positive.
Ah-Ha! I see I see - thank you. I'll go and have a look at that..
Reply With Quote
  #2220  
Old 11-06-12, 16:11
ToreBear's Avatar
ToreBear ToreBear is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hrotha View Post
He was also involved in the cover-up of Contador's positive.
Or was he the one who leaked it to the press?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.