Log in:  

Register

Cancellara

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re:

11 Feb 2017 09:07

ThePopeOfDope wrote:Really there's more of you now? Is someone linked to Fuentes by both Italian and Spanish police a clean Dr?


Unless I completely misunderstand something, nowhere did fmk_RoI say Cecchini was a clean doctor.

He's merely challenging the link to Conconi, which I don't even really understand how much it matters considering everything else known about Cecchini.
User avatar spalco
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,432
Joined: 01 Feb 2011 18:13
Location: Vienna

11 Feb 2017 09:56

He started quoting dopers about how Cecchini never talked about doping with them...
These same dopers who end up being linked to Fuentes who we know used Cecchini as an intermediary.
His point is Cecchini is not as dirty as he seems, in other words he's the "cleanest" Dr out there.
He then proceeded to quote Cecchini to defend the links with Conconi which again came straight from the police.
He would rather take the words of a doping Dr and doped riders than the police who we know are the only deterrent to doping.
And to make it even funnier he conveniently avoided to answer my question as to why they found doping products under his name, first by claiming I had to first answer his question on the links to Conconi, which I did and then stating his inability to use google translate,which thankfully @sniper did and still has not replied...
ps: He quoted all dopers defending Cecchini but not once did he quote dopers who attacked him and there are plenty...
Last edited by ThePopeOfDope on 11 Feb 2017 11:30, edited 1 time in total.
ThePopeOfDope
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 Dec 2016 13:41

Re:

11 Feb 2017 09:58

hrotha wrote:What's the big deal with needles in frickin' 1996? Can't a doctor draw some blood for an analysis?

I doubt Cecchini never gave PEDs to nobody, but I don't think you can just conveniently dismiss the testimony of so many largely unrelated people, some of whom have broken omertà.


You can and you should, because it's either you bring everyone down or you do what they all do and chose a select few you dislike.
ThePopeOfDope
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 Dec 2016 13:41

Re:

11 Feb 2017 10:53

sniper wrote:In fairness it's just you and fmkrol making a big deal out of it.

Dude that was my first post in this thread and right above that you were asking people to explain why a non-doping doctor would use a needle on a cyclist in 1996.
ThePopeOfDope wrote:
You can and you should, because it's either you bring everyone down or you do what they all do and chose a select few you dislike.

This is ridiculous. You should question it, but dismissing it out of hand just shows your bias. If you start from the assumption that whenever they don't bring down someone that's because they're buddies, there's not a lot of room for discussion.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,423
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re:

11 Feb 2017 10:54

ThePopeOfDope wrote:He started quoting dopers about how Cecchini never talked about doping with them...
These same dopers who end up being linked to Fuentes who we know used Cecchini as an intermediary.
His point is Cecchini is not as dirty as he seems, in other words he's the "cleanest" Dr out there.
He then proceeded to quote Cecchini to defend the links with Conconi which again came straight from the police.
He would rather take the words of a doping Dr and doped riders than the police who we know are the only deterrent to doping.
And to make it even funnier he conveniently avoided to answer my question as to why they found doping products under his name, first by claiming I had to first answer his question on the links to Cecchini, which I did and then stating his inability to use google translate,which thankfully @sniper did and still has not replied...
ps: He quoted all dopers defending Cecchini but not once did he quote dopers who attacked him and there are plenty...


A doping doctor might "outsource" the delivery and actual application of drugs, which doesn't make his actions any less despicable. And to understand the organisation of doping in sports arguably to some degree it matters to make these distinctions.

Personally, I don't give a ****. A doper's a doper. And doctors providing doping products or even just information on how to do it, are scum.
To use a really crude example: Neither Stalin nor Hitler ever killed anybody personally (as far as is known).
User avatar spalco
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,432
Joined: 01 Feb 2011 18:13
Location: Vienna

11 Feb 2017 11:29

@hrotha I dismiss it when a person decides to leave out names while ratting out others. It's not fair and therefore said person deserves nothing but to be treated like the liars they are.
The bias comes from people like you who believe stories of x but not y.
The bias comes from people leaving out names.
The bias does not come from those who question the integrity of people trying to remain relevant after getting caught...
Books by guys like Willy Voet are worth reading, books by guys like Dekker aren't.
@spalco I agree which is why I can't stand when people try to make Cecchini look like some unlucky guy who just was at the wrong place at the wrong time for his entire career...(I'm saying this because apparently working with 10s of dopers in the eyes of a few isn't evidence, it's just being guilty by association, in other words he's like Farah)
ThePopeOfDope
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 Dec 2016 13:41

Re:

11 Feb 2017 11:41

ThePopeOfDope wrote:@hrotha I dismiss it when a person decides to leave out names while ratting out others. It's not fair and therefore said person deserves nothing but to be treated like the liars they are.
The bias comes from people like you who believe stories of x but not y.
The bias comes from people leaving out names.
The bias does not come from those who question the integrity of people trying to remain relevant after getting caught...
Books by guys like Willy Voet are worth reading, books by guys like Dekker aren't.

You are assuming that stories of y or the other names left out exist. No room for discussion if that's your starting position. This is like calling BS on the stories about Bassons because they say he was clean.

I don't "believe stories of x but not y", thank you very much. This is my third post in this thread and I've barely said anything about my beliefs.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,423
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re:

11 Feb 2017 13:26

ThePopeOfDope wrote:The funniest thing is that he's defending someone who "coached" Bjarne Riis while he was on 2 maybe even 3 doses of epo a day and used 3 blood bags for 96 TDF...HCT of 60% was probably higher... Who do you think helped him with his transfusions?
On the two maybe even three doses of EPO a day, we only have a single source, the word of a known doping soigneur, Jef D'hont, with an acknowledged axe to grind, or as such testimony might be characterised by those round here who so effortlessly dismiss Riis, Dekker, Jaksche, Millar, Hamilton and now Cancellara, the lies of a lying liar (who actually only said two doses, 4,000 units, every other day - why the need to exaggerate, the case not strong enough at 4,000 units it needs to be upped to 12,000 to stick?).

On the three blood bags for the 1996 Tour, the only evidence for that is Hamilton. Daniel Benson (who someone will probably point out is another lying liar as he hasn't called out someone's doping when he should have or some such) has discussed this several times with Riis and each time Riis has said it didn't happen, he didn't use blood bags in 1996 (but then he would, wouldn't he, he's a lying liar). Even Jonathan Vaughters (who, natch, can't be relied on, being another lying liar) told me he doesn't understand why anyone would be using EPO at the dosage Riis was alleged to and blood bags, not in 1996, not before the 50% limit and not before any way of testing for EPO.

Believing the blood bag story without any additional evidence is, then, really problematic (and in case there is any doubt, I would love to be able to believe it, it would greatly help the picture I have of the history of transfusions). More so as it is made in the very same book that says Cecchini didn't discuss doping, was arm's length from doping, and - unlike the claims that at a certain point and for certain clients Cecco put himself at arm's length from actual doping programmes - Hamilton is the sole source for it.

Furthermore, we know that Hamilton's stories in that book can be challenged. The Riis story is actually very similar to the Lance Armstrong Tour de Suisse (or whichever one it was) failed test: we know that it is actually possible that Hamilton was told both stories as he claims to have been but that, as with the Armstrong one, Riis may have exaggerated a little for effect (in the very same way you yourself have exaggerated the alleged EPO dosage).
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

11 Feb 2017 13:54

@fmk_Rol You're funny... I told you I base things on facts not testimony from people with an "axe to grind"...
We know because of police investigation Riis had his HCT values fluctuate between 41 and 56... Not very hard to understand he clearly was abusing the stuff more than the Festina team...
It's great you take the time to try and discredit my points but how about you now take the time to answer my questions?
What's your excuse now? Are my comments not in the correct format? maybe the font size not appropriate for you?
ThePopeOfDope
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 Dec 2016 13:41

Re:

11 Feb 2017 14:12

ThePopeOfDope wrote:We know because of police investigation Riis had his HCT values fluctuate between 41 and 56... Not very hard to understand he clearly was abusing the stuff more than the Festina team...
So now we can calculate from a police blood test - with all its possible calibration errors© - the dosage of EPO someone was on, even when blood bags with unknown RBC content are being used? I have only one word for that - chapeau!
ThePopeOfDope wrote:It's great you take the time to try and discredit my points but how about you now take the time to answer my questions?
Questions questions questions - what is this, an episode of University Challenge?

I've already told you, you get what you give. You have said Cecchini is a well known - well known - associate of Conconi, you used that as one of the central pillars of your brilliantly argued guilt by association case. When I asked you for evidence of Cecchini being a well known - well known - associate of Conconi, all you offered is an untranslated report of a police case that never made it to court and seemed to base the alleged association on the two having signed different prescriptions found in the same pharmacy. Come on now, that isn't even evidence that they know one and other, let alone that the one is a well known - well known - associate of the other. Is that really the best you can give? Might you have been exaggerating just a little when you called him a well known - well known - associate of Conconi? I mean, you do exaggerate, we have seen that, is that all this was, just another a little bit of truth stretching from a person known to stretch the truth?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

11 Feb 2017 14:19

Calibration errors? What are you on about? those are from documents taken by the police from Conconi and Ferrari. Those are the values from the Gewiss team... Get over yourself.
I gave you evidence of the police linking Conconi to Cecchini which you refuse to acknowledge.
I gave you evidence of Cecchini's name being found on prescriptions which you also fail to acknowledge.
Your literally a straw man who quotes some dopers to defend Cecchini but not those who contest his integrity as a medic.
I'm done arguing with you. This is clearly going nowhere... You're clearly one of those who bought into the whole Sky marginal gains thing and now that we have evidence of Wiggins taking IM Kenalog you still refuse to acknowledge that there is something very shady going on in that team...
Maybe you're also one of those who thought Armstrong taking Actovegin was proof of nothing...
ThePopeOfDope
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 Dec 2016 13:41

Re:

11 Feb 2017 14:35

ThePopeOfDope wrote:Calibration errors? What are you on about? those are from documents taken by the police from Conconi and Ferrari. Those are the values from the Gewiss team... Get over yourself.
Well that's my career in stand-up down the pan. Bugger, I was looking forward to that...
ThePopeOfDope wrote:I gave you evidence of the police linking Conconi to Cecchini which you refuse to acknowledge.
I gave you evidence of Cecchini's name being found on prescriptions which you also fail to acknowledge.
That seems to be the same evidence twice. Which I have acknowledged, but clearly you have trouble reading. A flaw shared with certain others around these parts. One more time sunshine - is that all you've got?
ThePopeOfDope wrote:I'm done arguing with you.
Do you promise? Pinky swear? In front of witnesses?
ThePopeOfDope wrote:You're clearly one of those who bought into the whole Sky marginal gains thing and now that we have evidence of Wiggins taking IM Kenalog you still refuse to acknowledge that there is something very shady going on in that team...
Maybe you're also one of those who thought Armstrong taking Actovegin was proof of nothing...
Well I guess if you can calculate a man's EPO dosage based on blood tests then clearly you can look into my soul and decide what I think on topics you've never questioned me about...or then again this could be on a par with the rest of what you've so far had to say.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

11 Feb 2017 14:55

Why am I suddenly reminded of those Sky fans who for years on end were screaming "show me the evidence", and then when the Fancybears pulled the curtain, they started shifting the goalposts.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

11 Feb 2017 14:56

hrotha wrote:you were asking people to explain why a non-doping doctor would use a needle on a cyclist in 1996.

This is what I said about it:
And to be honest, "[Luigi] never handed me so much as an aspirin", as Hamilton claims in his book, that sounds like a bit of a joke when we see Luigi there on the photo pricking up Riis' arm, having his name on PED prescriptions, and ordering DHEA.
So there's that grain of salt again.
You can take issue with that, happily, but not with a twisted version of it.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

11 Feb 2017 16:09

fmk_RoI wrote:On the three blood bags for the 1996 Tour, the only evidence for that is Hamilton...

Riis testified having at least tried blood doping in 1997 ("...admits to the investigative group to have used blood doping once in his active career at Team Telekom... in connection with Tour de France in 1997..."), when Danish inquiry took a look into his doping practices two years ago. According to the report, Jörg Jaksche also recalled having heard that Dane had used transfusions, apparently before Hamilton made the accusation public in 2012:
Danish Doping Report wrote:To the investigative group Jörg Jaksche, who rode for Team Telekom 1999 – 2000 and for Riis’ cycling team in 2004, has supported Hamilton’s allegation that Riis used blood transfusions while he rode for Team Telekom. He does not remember if it was Riis and /or Hamilton who told him about it, but he is certain that either Riis and/or Hamilton (in 2007 where Hamilton and Jaksche trained together in Lucca, Italy) told him that Riis used blood doping in his active career. Jaksche had an impression that Riis used blood doping several times and that Riis had knowledge of how to organise and execute a blood doping programme. Jaksche does not remember exactly when Riis would have used blood doping.

The rationale to withdraw and reinfuse blood in 1996 before rEPO-test or "health check" remains still somewhat murky as even autotransfusions carry a risk and can ruin a preparation.
User avatar Aragon
Junior Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 17:44
Location: Finland

Re:

11 Feb 2017 16:37

sniper wrote:Why am I suddenly reminded of those Sky fans who for years on end were screaming "show me the evidence", and then when the Fancybears pulled the curtain, they started shifting the goalposts.
I dunno, cognition issues? The Cecchini claims and the Fancy Bears leaks both actually suggest something quite similar: that the doping that is undoubtedly going on - certainly over the course of the last decade - is a lot less sophisticated and organised than many would have us believe it is.
Last edited by fmk_RoI on 11 Feb 2017 16:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

11 Feb 2017 16:46

Aragon wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:On the three blood bags for the 1996 Tour, the only evidence for that is Hamilton...

Riis testified having at least tried blood doping in 1997 ("...admits to the investigative group to have used blood doping once in his active career at Team Telekom... in connection with Tour de France in 1997..."), when Danish inquiry took a look into his doping practices two years ago. According to the report, Jörg Jaksche also recalled having heard that Dane had used transfusions, apparently before Hamilton made the accusation public in 2012:
Danish Doping Report wrote:To the investigative group Jörg Jaksche, who rode for Team Telekom 1999 – 2000 and for Riis’ cycling team in 2004, has supported Hamilton’s allegation that Riis used blood transfusions while he rode for Team Telekom. He does not remember if it was Riis and /or Hamilton who told him about it, but he is certain that either Riis and/or Hamilton (in 2007 where Hamilton and Jaksche trained together in Lucca, Italy) told him that Riis used blood doping in his active career. Jaksche had an impression that Riis used blood doping several times and that Riis had knowledge of how to organise and execute a blood doping programme. Jaksche does not remember exactly when Riis would have used blood doping.

The rationale to withdraw and reinfuse blood in 1996 before rEPO-test or "health check" remains still somewhat murky as even autotransfusions carry a risk and can ruin a preparation.
My belief is that transfusions did come back into favour at least as soon as the H-test came in, that they were seen as a way of getting around the 50% limit. But that is 1997 and after. The claims here are for 1996. For which - and I say this sadly, and I think you can guess how much it saddens me - we are lacking in evidence. Jaksche here is not supporting Hamilton on 1996 (he wasn't a member of Telekom until what, 1998, was he even a pro in 1996?) Jaksche does support Hamilton on the claim central to this recent discussion about Cecchini being at least arms length when it came to their doping, merely telling them of the need to keep the weight down and the hematocrit up, leaving them to source the products to aid that elsewhere.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

12 Feb 2017 20:58

sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

12 Feb 2017 21:13

fmk_RoI wrote:
sniper wrote:Why am I suddenly reminded of those Sky fans who for years on end were screaming "show me the evidence", and then when the Fancybears pulled the curtain, they started shifting the goalposts.
I dunno, cognition issues? The Cecchini claims and the Fancy Bears leaks both actually suggest something quite similar: that the doping that is undoubtedly going on - certainly over the course of the last decade - is a lot less sophisticated and organised than many would have us believe it is.

100% agree. I think most would agree with this, even the most cynical.
"This is the Tour that will determine If I can drink espresso at the Garda lake the rest of my life"
User avatar Valv.Piti
Moderator
 
Posts: 7,398
Joined: 03 Aug 2015 00:00
Location: Dinamarca, Aalborg

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2017 16:57

Benotti69 wrote:Cecchini worked on Aristoea for 1 year with Ferrari yet claims he doesn't know him and met him once.

Take what those in the sport say about their doping involvement with a grain of salt.
Do you have a source for that claim, that Cecchini claims he doesn't know Ferrari, claims he only met Ferrari the once? Because, again, from what I have seen, Cecchini does not deny that he and Ferrari were both part of the Ariostea set-up. Of course, the simple answer here is that you can't read, that you read a quote saying Cecchini claims not to know Conconi, claims to have met Conconi only the once, only you weren't paying attention when you were reading and decided it was talking about Ferrari, not Conconi.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dazed and Confused, veganrob, yaco and 25 guests

Back to top