Log in:  

Register

Calling out dopers, ignoring others, Omertà and hypocrisy

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

04 May 2015 19:22

carton wrote:Because this is happening. Aru-types are being semi-outed. Barguil is subtly going after Zakarin. All-american boy TVG is getting questioned, hard, by american journos. You don't see that many pictures of Froome and Vino together, he even seems to admit it was a bad idea to hang out with him. Even Nibali doesn't seem specially warm to the idea of being seen to much with his boss.

I think every one of these examples is flawed. That's assuming they are correct to begin with. Is Aru being semi- outed? One guy made one tweet and retracted it. Is Froome refusing to be seen with Vino? Well its not like they cross eachothers paths that much, but Froome is pally with Contador, does docus with Sean Kelly.

But anyway, its very disputable if, even if true, any of these are examples of omerta being broken.

Take Nibali refusing to be seen with Vino. I mean I don't know where you are coming from since this is only your second post, but lets be honest,Nibali is a rider who is quite obviously doping and has been doing so for a while.

If Nibali is doping, then what benefit exactly is him not wanting to be seen with Vino bringing to the sport? None. Its just 2 dopers not talking to eachother. All it shows is that dopers have learned how to behave in public to make people think they are clean.

And besides, Omerta means silence. Nibali or Froome not being seen with Vino, isn't breaking silence. Its definately not breaking omerta, because they are not breaking silence. On the contrary they are maintaining silence. Actually, if we look at your examples deeper we find that actually many of them actually show that the sport is in a very bad place.
I mean neither Froome nor Nibali are so much as willing to even call Vino out as a doper. BTW that wouldn't be breaking Omerta either. But they won't even do that. Nibali hasn't said squat. Froome was given the chance by Kimmage to say Vino is bad cos he doped, but he REFUSED. They won't even call out the dopers who everyone knows have doped.

Or look at Barguil calling out Zakarin. Yeah he called out Zakarin, but is 1 rider making 1 tweet a sign of omerta being broken? Pinotti called out Armstrong in 09. Kimmage wrote his book over 2 decades ago. Besides Barguil only called out a still relative nobody. Not a word about Valverde or Contador. Didn't seem to thing much wrong with Horner either back when Barguil enjoying his 2 stage wins in Horner's gt.

And American journos questioning TJVG? Well all I see is this Hood idiot writing absolute bullshit propaganda about how the sport was clean for 3 years without offering any arguments whatsoever to back it up. I see Ligget STILL being the "voice of cycling" in the United States, as well as plenty of other doping enablers, liars etc continuing to prosper in the commentary booth or on websites like velonews.

So I would call into question many of your examples, and also point out that 1 or 2 examples from here and there really do not mean omerta is being broken.

And btw, its when the guys winning the monuments and grand tours are being called out that you will know cycling is making some progress. A guy who 1 week ago was a total nobody who won 1 of the least important wt stage races, that's no big deal really
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,896
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

04 May 2015 19:26

Has anyone called out Voigt yet? ;)
User avatar Gung Ho Gun
Member
 
Posts: 503
Joined: 15 Jul 2013 14:46

Re:

04 May 2015 19:29

carton wrote:And more and more fans want to see Andreu or Millar calling races, rather appologists like Liggart.

Oh Oh Oh, hold the phone. Did you just say Millar? As in David Millar. One of the biggest liars and hypocrites in the history of the sport. The guy who doped and lied about it? The guy who told Landis he was damaging the sport by testifying about Lance? The guy who said he knew 100% Contador was clean because its impossible to ride fast if you are doping?

That is the guy you think will bring credibility to the commentary booth? Are you kidding?

Lance Armstrong himself would bring 10x more credibility to the sport than the weasel multitime liar that is david millar.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,896
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

04 May 2015 20:19

The Hitch wrote:
carton wrote:And more and more fans want to see Andreu or Millar calling races, rather appologists like Liggart.

Oh Oh Oh, hold the phone. Did you just say Millar? As in David Millar. One of the biggest liars and hypocrites in the history of the sport. The guy who doped and lied about it? The guy who told Landis he was damaging the sport by testifying about Lance? The guy who said he knew 100% Contador was clean because its impossible to ride fast if you are doping?

I was actually thinking of Matt Stephens. I was going to say "Andreu, Stephens or even Millar" and then thought about adding Matt so as not to be confused for Neil; and then I thought about removing Millar because I knew something like this was going to happen and I didn't want to get into it and I certainly didn't want to defend Millar; and then I flubbed it.

The Hitch wrote:Lance Armstrong himself would bring 10x more credibility to the sport than the weasel multitime liar that is david millar.

But yeah, this is why I hadn't posted here outside of pre-switch comments.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Re:

04 May 2015 20:39

The Hitch wrote:
carton wrote:Because this is happening. Aru-types are being semi-outed. Barguil is subtly going after Zakarin. All-american boy TVG is getting questioned, hard, by american journos. You don't see that many pictures of Froome and Vino together, he even seems to admit it was a bad idea to hang out with him. Even Nibali doesn't seem specially warm to the idea of being seen to much with his boss.

I think every one of these examples is flawed. That's assuming they are correct to begin with. Is Aru being semi- outed? One guy made one tweet and retracted it. Is Froome refusing to be seen with Vino? Well its not like they cross eachothers paths that much, but Froome is pally with Contador, does docus with Sean Kelly.

But anyway, its very disputable if, even if true, any of these are examples of omerta being broken.

Take Nibali refusing to be seen with Vino. I mean I don't know where you are coming from since this is only your second post, but lets be honest,Nibali is a rider who is quite obviously doping and has been doing so for a while.

If Nibali is doping, then what benefit exactly is him not wanting to be seen with Vino bringing to the sport? None. Its just 2 dopers not talking to eachother. All it shows is that dopers have learned how to behave in public to make people think they are clean.

And besides, Omerta means silence. Nibali or Froome not being seen with Vino, isn't breaking silence. Its definately not breaking omerta, because they are not breaking silence. On the contrary they are maintaining silence. Actually, if we look at your examples deeper we find that actually many of them actually show that the sport is in a very bad place.
I mean neither Froome nor Nibali are so much as willing to even call Vino out as a doper. BTW that wouldn't be breaking Omerta either. But they won't even do that. Nibali hasn't said squat. Froome was given the chance by Kimmage to say Vino is bad cos he doped, but he REFUSED. They won't even call out the dopers who everyone knows have doped.

Or look at Barguil calling out Zakarin. Yeah he called out Zakarin, but is 1 rider making 1 tweet a sign of omerta being broken? Pinotti called out Armstrong in 09. Kimmage wrote his book over 2 decades ago. Besides Barguil only called out a still relative nobody. Not a word about Valverde or Contador. Didn't seem to thing much wrong with Horner either back when Barguil enjoying his 2 stage wins in Horner's gt.

And American journos questioning TJVG? Well all I see is this Hood idiot writing absolute bullshit propaganda about how the sport was clean for 3 years without offering any arguments whatsoever to back it up. I see Ligget STILL being the "voice of cycling" in the United States, as well as plenty of other doping enablers, liars etc continuing to prosper in the commentary booth or on websites like velonews.

So I would call into question many of your examples, and also point out that 1 or 2 examples from here and there really do not mean omerta is being broken.

And btw, its when the guys winning the monuments and grand tours are being called out that you will know cycling is making some progress. A guy who 1 week ago was a total nobody who won 1 of the least important wt stage races, that's no big deal really

News flash: powerful people are harder to take down and harder to call out. But very powerful enablers like John Wilcockson, Phil Ligget and John Burke have lost their sway and are singing a new tune. Velonews' Neal Rogers was the guy sitting beside LeMonde when he called out Armstrong. Recent articles there have mentioned Horner and Valverde's less than stellar records. Daniel Friebe has done excellent work here. This is not business as usual. Froome sat down with Kimmage and admitted, against his wife's fudging, that he knew Vino was a doper. Yeah, maybe it's all lip service, but if it's easier to at least pretend to be doing the right thing then yeah, that's a step in the right direction. It is, maybe not "10x", but much better than Lance making everyone dance.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

04 May 2015 20:44

Froome admitted he knew Vino was a doper?
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,896
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

04 May 2015 20:56

PK: What about your ethics? You use the word ‘betrayal’ about Basso and I’m thinking ‘That’s exactly what I want to hear.’ But then I see you at Vinokourov’s retirement party and being photographed with him. So what happens to betrayal?

CF: Yeah, I mean going to Vinokourov’s thing . . . this guy is a big icon in cycling. He has a retirement party here (Monaco),and there’s going to be a lot of influential cycling people here . . .

PK: He’s a **** cheat.

CF: (Laughs) You said that.

MC: I don’t think Chris fully understood that (Vinokourov) had doped.

CF: No, I knew.

MC: Not fully.


Oh boy that is always special to read again....
User avatar mrhender
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,656
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 07:54

Re:

04 May 2015 20:57

The Hitch wrote:Froome admitted he knew Vino was a doper?


"not fully" - Cound-dawg
User avatar Moose McKnuckles
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,872
Joined: 07 Nov 2009 05:48

Re:

04 May 2015 20:58

The Hitch wrote:Froome admitted he knew Vino was a doper?

not really
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

04 May 2015 20:59

moose got me by a few seconds and on accuracy, chapeau McKnuckles
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

04 May 2015 21:01

and Hender
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

Re:

04 May 2015 21:28

mrhender wrote:Oh boy that is always special to read again....

Agreed. The subtext on that entire volley was priceless. Thanks for the quote.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Re:

04 May 2015 21:59

carton wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
carton wrote:Because this is happening. Aru-types are being semi-outed. Barguil is subtly going after Zakarin. All-american boy TVG is getting questioned, hard, by american journos. You don't see that many pictures of Froome and Vino together, he even seems to admit it was a bad idea to hang out with him. Even Nibali doesn't seem specially warm to the idea of being seen to much with his boss.

I think every one of these examples is flawed. That's assuming they are correct to begin with. Is Aru being semi- outed? One guy made one tweet and retracted it. Is Froome refusing to be seen with Vino? Well its not like they cross eachothers paths that much, but Froome is pally with Contador, does docus with Sean Kelly.

But anyway, its very disputable if, even if true, any of these are examples of omerta being broken.

Take Nibali refusing to be seen with Vino. I mean I don't know where you are coming from since this is only your second post, but lets be honest,Nibali is a rider who is quite obviously doping and has been doing so for a while.

If Nibali is doping, then what benefit exactly is him not wanting to be seen with Vino bringing to the sport? None. Its just 2 dopers not talking to eachother. All it shows is that dopers have learned how to behave in public to make people think they are clean.

And besides, Omerta means silence. Nibali or Froome not being seen with Vino, isn't breaking silence. Its definately not breaking omerta, because they are not breaking silence. On the contrary they are maintaining silence. Actually, if we look at your examples deeper we find that actually many of them actually show that the sport is in a very bad place.
I mean neither Froome nor Nibali are so much as willing to even call Vino out as a doper. BTW that wouldn't be breaking Omerta either. But they won't even do that. Nibali hasn't said squat. Froome was given the chance by Kimmage to say Vino is bad cos he doped, but he REFUSED. They won't even call out the dopers who everyone knows have doped.

Or look at Barguil calling out Zakarin. Yeah he called out Zakarin, but is 1 rider making 1 tweet a sign of omerta being broken? Pinotti called out Armstrong in 09. Kimmage wrote his book over 2 decades ago. Besides Barguil only called out a still relative nobody. Not a word about Valverde or Contador. Didn't seem to thing much wrong with Horner either back when Barguil enjoying his 2 stage wins in Horner's gt.

And American journos questioning TJVG? Well all I see is this Hood idiot writing absolute bullshit propaganda about how the sport was clean for 3 years without offering any arguments whatsoever to back it up. I see Ligget STILL being the "voice of cycling" in the United States, as well as plenty of other doping enablers, liars etc continuing to prosper in the commentary booth or on websites like velonews.

So I would call into question many of your examples, and also point out that 1 or 2 examples from here and there really do not mean omerta is being broken.

And btw, its when the guys winning the monuments and grand tours are being called out that you will know cycling is making some progress. A guy who 1 week ago was a total nobody who won 1 of the least important wt stage races, that's no big deal really

News flash: powerful people are harder to take down and harder to call out.

Well, that's the point. The whole point of a sacrifice is that its hard.

Its kind of like saying "I really want to pass this exam" and when a friend says, "ok , lets study for it" you reply, "nah, lets just be lazy and hope the right questions come up". Well then you don't really want it.
In the same way, someone who only wants to complain about a small fish doping but won't go after the guys winning monuments and gts, isn't really anti doping.

Its not like Valverde is even that hard of a target to go after. He served a ban. What's he gonna do if you call him out. Probably just do like he always did and hide until it blows over.

But at the very least the rider would be aknowledging the fact that there are flaws with the sport. Because when the riders at the top who are fighting for major races all year round, are doping,there is a major flaw in the system.
When they call out a Santambrogio or Zakarin who have merely won 1 smaller race, what they are suggesting is that the sport itself is clean, but that occasionally, someone on the periphery might succeed in 1 race through doping.

Now the above is a perfectly fine argument to have, if you actually believe that the sport is clean and only 1 or 2 riders have occasional success on the periphery through doping. But if Barguil, or anyone else making that argument actually believe that, they should probably explain why they think Zakarin is still doping, but Valverde and Contador are clean.

Which is why it matters very little if riders call out small fish. They are only challenging the 1 rider, not the sport itself, not the system. And ultimately omerta is and always has been about protecting a system, not an individual. Its when they call out the guys at the top that it matters. And with Valverde and Contador being the guys at the top top top, this should be a million times easier than it was when Armstrong was at the top. Because its not like Valverde or Contador can sue you for questioning them when they already served doping bans.

But no one does. That's telling.

And ps, when I say attack Contador and Valverde, I mean question how it is that they are winning NOW and not merely attack them for having doped before while implying they cleaned up their act and have learned how to win clean in this new fairytale utopia peloton.

-------
So I guess I was wrong that Froome didn't say Vino dopes. He did. Though only after being questioned about it because he was chummy with him. Which goes back to my original argument. If Froome was being friendly with Vino in 2012 after he had podiumed 2 grand tours and got an olympic medal, and now he doesn't, then that implies there is no real change in the sport only that people are behaving differently to create the perception the sport is changing.

In any case, saying "Vino doped", or "Di Luca doped" isn't saying very much because there have been plenty of people in the sport who have pointed fingers at scapegoats and later turned out to have doped.

I don't know what friebe has done. Don't follow him. Last 2 times I heard of him was once when he mocked Vayer in 2013 after Vayer said Froome doped, and once a few months earlier when i read that he was putting down people on twitter who said Porte was doping for Paris Nice. In any case, if he actually believes some guys who were outside the world top 500 are now doing 6 wk in the final week of the Tour because they discovered some magic training techniques, then i don't have time for him. Though I don't know if that is his position since I don't read any of the places he writes for.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,896
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re:

04 May 2015 22:34

carton wrote:You don't see that many pictures of Froome and Vino together


You will: they're both in my team called "La Vie Pas Claire" on the fantasy doping draft thread :D . With Berzin and Valverde. Cheers :p
SOLO LA VITTORIA È BELLA
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,982
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

Re: Re:

04 May 2015 22:41

The Hitch wrote:
carton wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
carton wrote:Because this is happening. Aru-types are being semi-outed. Barguil is subtly going after Zakarin. All-american boy TVG is getting questioned, hard, by american journos. You don't see that many pictures of Froome and Vino together, he even seems to admit it was a bad idea to hang out with him. Even Nibali doesn't seem specially warm to the idea of being seen to much with his boss.

I think every one of these examples is flawed. That's assuming they are correct to begin with. Is Aru being semi- outed? One guy made one tweet and retracted it. Is Froome refusing to be seen with Vino? Well its not like they cross eachothers paths that much, but Froome is pally with Contador, does docus with Sean Kelly.

But anyway, its very disputable if, even if true, any of these are examples of omerta being broken.

Take Nibali refusing to be seen with Vino. I mean I don't know where you are coming from since this is only your second post, but lets be honest,Nibali is a rider who is quite obviously doping and has been doing so for a while.

If Nibali is doping, then what benefit exactly is him not wanting to be seen with Vino bringing to the sport? None. Its just 2 dopers not talking to eachother. All it shows is that dopers have learned how to behave in public to make people think they are clean.

And besides, Omerta means silence. Nibali or Froome not being seen with Vino, isn't breaking silence. Its definately not breaking omerta, because they are not breaking silence. On the contrary they are maintaining silence. Actually, if we look at your examples deeper we find that actually many of them actually show that the sport is in a very bad place.
I mean neither Froome nor Nibali are so much as willing to even call Vino out as a doper. BTW that wouldn't be breaking Omerta either. But they won't even do that. Nibali hasn't said squat. Froome was given the chance by Kimmage to say Vino is bad cos he doped, but he REFUSED. They won't even call out the dopers who everyone knows have doped.

Or look at Barguil calling out Zakarin. Yeah he called out Zakarin, but is 1 rider making 1 tweet a sign of omerta being broken? Pinotti called out Armstrong in 09. Kimmage wrote his book over 2 decades ago. Besides Barguil only called out a still relative nobody. Not a word about Valverde or Contador. Didn't seem to thing much wrong with Horner either back when Barguil enjoying his 2 stage wins in Horner's gt.

And American journos questioning TJVG? Well all I see is this Hood idiot writing absolute bullshit propaganda about how the sport was clean for 3 years without offering any arguments whatsoever to back it up. I see Ligget STILL being the "voice of cycling" in the United States, as well as plenty of other doping enablers, liars etc continuing to prosper in the commentary booth or on websites like velonews.

So I would call into question many of your examples, and also point out that 1 or 2 examples from here and there really do not mean omerta is being broken.

And btw, its when the guys winning the monuments and grand tours are being called out that you will know cycling is making some progress. A guy who 1 week ago was a total nobody who won 1 of the least important wt stage races, that's no big deal really

News flash: powerful people are harder to take down and harder to call out.

Well, that's the point. The whole point of a sacrifice is that its hard.

Its kind of like saying "I really want to pass this exam" and when a friend says, "ok , lets study for it" you reply, "nah, lets just be lazy and hope the right questions come up". Well then you don't really want it.
In the same way, someone who only wants to complain about a small fish doping but won't go after the guys winning monuments and gts, isn't really anti doping.

Its not like Valverde is even that hard of a target to go after. He served a ban. What's he gonna do if you call him out. Probably just do like he always did and hide until it blows over.

But at the very least the rider would be aknowledging the fact that there are flaws with the sport. Because when the riders at the top who are fighting for major races all year round, are doping,there is a major flaw in the system.
When they call out a Santambrogio or Zakarin who have merely won 1 smaller race, what they are suggesting is that the sport itself is clean, but that occasionally, someone on the periphery might succeed in 1 race through doping.

Now the above is a perfectly fine argument to have, if you actually believe that the sport is clean and only 1 or 2 riders have occasional success on the periphery through doping. But if Barguil, or anyone else making that argument actually believe that, they should probably explain why they think Zakarin is still doping, but Valverde and Contador are clean.

Which is why it matters very little if riders call out small fish. They are only challenging the 1 rider, not the sport itself, not the system. And ultimately omerta is and always has been about protecting a system, not an individual. Its when they call out the guys at the top that it matters. And with Valverde and Contador being the guys at the top top top, this should be a million times easier than it was when Armstrong was at the top. Because its not like Valverde or Contador can sue you for questioning them when they already served doping bans.

But no one does. That's telling.

And ps, when I say attack Contador and Valverde, I mean question how it is that they are winning NOW and not merely attack them for having doped before while implying they cleaned up their act and have learned how to win clean in this new fairytale utopia peloton.

-------
So I guess I was wrong that Froome didn't say Vino dopes. He did. Though only after being questioned about it because he was chummy with him. Which goes back to my original argument. If Froome was being friendly with Vino in 2012 after he had podiumed 2 grand tours and got an olympic medal, and now he doesn't, then that implies there is no real change in the sport only that people are behaving differently to create the perception the sport is changing.

In any case, saying "Vino doped", or "Di Luca doped" isn't saying very much because there have been plenty of people in the sport who have pointed fingers at scapegoats and later turned out to have doped.

I don't know what friebe has done. Don't follow him. Last 2 times I heard of him was once when he mocked Vayer in 2013 after Vayer said Froome doped, and once a few months earlier when i read that he was putting down people on twitter who said Porte was doping for Paris Nice. In any case, if he actually believes some guys who were outside the world top 500 are now doing 6 wk in the final week of the Tour because they discovered some magic training techniques, then i don't have time for him. Though I don't know if that is his position since I don't read any of the places he writes for.

On this thread you can give names, The Hitch. One of the aforementioned dopers is right there on my board at #3. But back to the topic. You make all great points.Still, as far as I'm concerned, every bit counts. Calling out a small fish may not seem like much, but more of these may lead to bigger stuff as the small fishes want to save their skin, or as others get emboldened.
SOLO LA VITTORIA È BELLA
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,982
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

Re: Re:

04 May 2015 22:59

Friebe::
All of which seems to bring possible flash-points into sharper focus - but may also not be the whole story. Anti-Doping Denmark’s (ADD) long-awaited report into drug use in cycling is being readied for publication. By suspending Riis, one reasonable theory goes, Tinkov has merely beaten the ADD to the punch. Perfectly reasonable, as we said, but also improbable in most sources’ eyes: one, because the report might embarrass Riis but is unlikely to result in sanctions, not least because the statute of limitations on the alleged offences has run out; two, because on past evidence, Tinkov won’t sacrifice Riis on ethical grounds, not even to save himself the Dane’s annual wage.

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/595115946748022785

Not the most stringent anti-doping journalist but more straight shooting, methinks, than some of his predecessors here.

No one serious thinks this is really a fairytale utopia peloton. Astana is still here. So is Katusha and Tinkoff-Saxo. Sky faces, fairly or not (I'm on the fence, TBH), salvo after salvo. Lefevere gets knocked around from time to time. Nobody is holding up Unzue as a paragon of virtue. Neither is Vaughters, for that matter. The times are too fast for comfort. But the sport is moving towards no-tolerance and no-syringes and no-TUEs. Velonews journos are openly attacking the big fish (Valverde), even American ones (Horner), instead of writing Armstrong hagiographies. Race organizers aren't giving relatively big home draws (Horner, Rebellin) the time of day. And riders are attacking winning GC contenders, not just the recently caught afterthoughts. That is change. And I do think that while there are some self-serving feints in there on the whole it may be for the better. Yeah, no rider or journalist, both of whose livelihoods are directly tied to the attractiveness of cycling to sponsors, is saying that most of the winners are frauds and road racing is basically a scam. Which it may partially be. But you surely must allow them at least that modicum of self-interest. Because if we stop pushing towards a little better and just shout out that it is not enough then it surely never will be.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Calling out dopers, ignoring others, Omertà and hypocris

04 May 2015 23:13

blackcat wrote:If you want a cleaner sport, go back to local club racing or second tier domestic racing.

Missed this. Not in my neck of the woods, not by a long shot.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Re:

04 May 2015 23:36

carton wrote:But the sport is moving towards no-tolerance and no-syringes and no-TUEs.


but wait, you just invoked a lower regulatory threshold than the outlawed PED WADA code list.

they use the WADA code list, which is set at a much higher threshold to breach, yet you cite hypodermics and cortisone?

shhheeeeeeiiittt. they already take the explicitly outlawed stuff. You think these little tweaks can do anything more than be good marketing for Vaughters and Brailsford, even when they get their backdated butter on head TUEs like Armstrong in 99
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

Re: Re:

05 May 2015 00:08

The Hitch wrote:I don't know what friebe has done. Don't follow him. Last 2 times I heard of him was once when he mocked Vayer in 2013 after Vayer said Froome doped, and once a few months earlier when i read that he was putting down people on twitter who said Porte was doping for Paris Nice. In any case, if he actually believes some guys who were outside the world top 500 are now doing 6 wk in the final week of the Tour because they discovered some magic training techniques, then i don't have time for him. Though I don't know if that is his position since I don't read any of the places he writes for.


CArton - Friebe an anti-doping journo ! I'm with Hitch. This is the guy who is still milking the Eddy gravy train ! I bet Cookson bought his book on Eddy and recommends it to all budding pro juniors. Lesson 1 - don't get caught. Lesson 2 - if you do get caught, make sure you have already ripped off so many races that it doesn't matter everyone still thinks you are great. Lance got close, he just left himself hostage to fortune by overdoing it too many times and rubbing too many peoples noses in it.

Sir Brad (Friebe also wrote a book about the him) needed to win a couple more Tours and he to could have toggled to "invulnerable cyclist" and if he was outed it wouldn't have mattered too much. As it is now, if somebody tough follows Cookson at the UCI, all those frozen samples might reveal something and that whole "we fluff pillows better than the rest" story will sink faster than the Titanic.

Freibe is just another hack sucking up to British Cycling and but turning as the wind changes direction.
Freddythefrog
Member
 
Posts: 697
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 06:50

Re: Calling out dopers, ignoring others, Omertà and hypocris

05 May 2015 09:59

carton wrote:
blackcat wrote:If you want a cleaner sport, go back to local club racing or second tier domestic racing.

Missed this. Not in my neck of the woods, not by a long shot.


Yes, PEDS are being used all the time for nothing but vanity and getting the better of your circle of accquintances. Shockingly, their use becomes even more prevalent when you can actually make money winning like in pro sports. :p
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,221
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 21 guests

Back to top