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
  #11121  
Old 12-31-12, 20:47
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Why are they in a corner?

Have you been under a rock these past few months? McQ is under attack from all angles over complicity in doping cover ups, and not fighting the fight. He has to say that things are cleaner otherwise he is acceding to his critics.

What he says is neither here nor there, but the one thing he knows is that is not within his power to cover up doping. The Armstrong Saga demonstrates that.
So saying unequivocally that Sky are clean when anyone can see that knowing this is impossible combats that? Reads to me like more coverup, and digging the hole deeper. If they're in a corner it's from actions and statements just like this. Really easy to get out of the corner. Stop lying.

I'm confused how the Armstrong saga demonstrates that it's not within his power to cover up doping. I thought the Armstrong saga detailed it pretty clearly how it was not only in his power, but quite likely that he did cover up doping.
Reply With Quote
  #11122  
Old 12-31-12, 20:48
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benotti69 View Post
The funny thing about the cortico's was he was asked before the cortico postive about doping and he replied he would never put anything in his body after having had cancer...

I wonder when Wiggins will make a similar faux pas....
I know, but still, he was within the bandwith doping at that time, sounds like the bio-pass?

Dope to the limits and you will be fine. Who ever invented the 133 points rule in the bio? Specialists concider 95-100 very suspicious of doping...
Reply With Quote
  #11123  
Old 12-31-12, 20:58
del1962 del1962 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_flanders View Post
So saying unequivocally that Sky are clean when anyone can see that knowing this is impossible combats that? Reads to me like more coverup, and digging the hole deeper. If they're in a corner it's from actions and statements just like this. Really easy to get out of the corner. Stop lying.

I'm confused how the Armstrong saga demonstrates that it's not within his power to cover up doping. I thought the Armstrong saga detailed it pretty clearly how it was not only in his power, but quite likely that he did cover up doping.
While I agree that they certainly can't know it for certain, the assuption that it is then a coverup is a complete logical fallacy.

it can be that they stongly believe that Sky is clean and thus they are happy to make a strong point about it, especially in the wake of LA, they would hardly want to get their fingers burned again if they have suspicions.
Reply With Quote
  #11124  
Old 12-31-12, 21:00
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post

So tell me why UCI is pronouncing Sky clean and are screaming it off the rooftops. I have an explanation. You don't.
I have an explanation too. The UCI have no idea whether they are or they aren't, like the rest of us, but saying that they are is very good for business.
Reply With Quote
  #11125  
Old 12-31-12, 21:02
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benotti69 View Post
The funny thing about the cortico's was he was asked before the cortico postive about doping and he replied he would never put anything in his body after having had cancer...

I wonder when Wiggins will make a similar faux pas....
A similar faux pas? What, like getting cancer?
Reply With Quote
  #11126  
Old 12-31-12, 21:14
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_flanders View Post
So saying unequivocally that Sky are clean when anyone can see that knowing this is impossible combats that? Reads to me like more coverup, and digging the hole deeper. If they're in a corner it's from actions and statements just like this. Really easy to get out of the corner. Stop lying.
He isn't just talking to the participants in The Clinic.

He is under attack for doing nothing to combat doping in cycling. He is defending himself by saying he has done something (in fact he is saying it is the only thing he does). Therefore he has to say that cycling is cleaner now, otherwise he will be giving in to his critics.....and that in turn means saying that he thinks the TdF champion is clean.


Quote:
I'm confused how the Armstrong saga demonstrates that it's not within his power to cover up doping. I thought the Armstrong saga detailed it pretty clearly how it was not only in his power, but quite likely that he did cover up doping.
No he (possibly) tried to cover up doping. If he did try, he failed. It came out in ways he had no power to stop, despite trying.
Reply With Quote
  #11127  
Old 12-31-12, 21:21
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of The Wolds View Post
A similar faux pas? What, like getting cancer?
No, like making an unequivocal statement such as "I know exactly why I wouldn't dope. To start with, I come to professional road-racing from a different background to a lot of guys. There is a different culture in British cycling. Britain is a country where doping is not morally acceptable."
Before someone else from BC goes positive. Would be a hypothetical example.
__________________
Scientific Expert
Reply With Quote
  #11128  
Old 12-31-12, 21:30
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
No he (possibly) tried to cover up doping. If he did try, he failed. It came out in ways he had no power to stop, despite trying.
It shows it was outwith his control to cover up years and years of big time doping, which lots of people knew about, for years after the offences were committed.

Doping now is not on the superhuman scale and lessons may have been learnt.
__________________
Scientific Expert
Reply With Quote
  #11129  
Old 12-31-12, 21:40
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Doping is doping.

Dope bigtime, dope smalltime. You are still a doper.

What you are suggesting would be like a murderer saying to a jury:

"Yes, ok, I murdered him"

"But only a little bit"
Reply With Quote
  #11130  
Old 12-31-12, 21:43
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post




No he (possibly) tried to cover up doping. If he did try, he failed. It came out in ways he had no power to stop, despite trying.
Arguably it came out only because LA was totally out of control and thought he could get away with anything, forever. Would all this have come out if Lance had been a "nice guy" ala Indurain? If he would have hired Landis, or not narced on Tyler, if he would not have bullied so many people?
McQuack didn't "possibly try to cover up doping", he did cover up doping, successfully, and for a very long time.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
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 22:38.


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.