Are past dopers credible?

[saganftw]

nobody is credible,thats why investigation takes so much time

 

[skippy]

Whilst riding the Giro routes i have been missing out on the fun reports about Shamilton , Flandis & Hiccupie's "mea culpa's"!

Will try to catch up next week but last night i came across Shane Bannon , Neil Stephens & Matt White in Bergamo with some bright and shiny "greenedge vehicles" !

Was introduced to the new CEO as well , lurking nearby was an "aussie" who in 2004 said he didn't want an intro to Charlie Gaul as he had not won 5 TDF 's !

Told me we didn't move in the same circles but on reflection decided to shake hands , must have found his manners

 

[Benotti69]

Whilst riding the Giro routes i have been missing out on the fun reports about Shamilton , Flandis & Hiccupie's "mea culpa's"!

Will try to catch up next week but last night i came across Shane Bannon , Neil Stephens & Matt White in Bergamo with some bright and shiny "greenedge vehicles" !

Was introduced to the new CEO as well , lurking nearby was an "aussie" who in 2004 said he didn't want an intro to Charlie Gaul as he had not won 5 TDF 's !

Told me we didn't move in the same circles but on reflection decided to shake hands , must have found his manners

name and shame.........

 

[Stingray34]

Taking PED's doesn't make one a stranger to virtue. To even ask the question is to fall for LA's propaganda.

Really, it's easy to see why someone guilty of doping may lie for a while; it's harder to understand why anyone innocent of doping would suddenly admit to something that never happened.

 

[Stingray34]

Whilst riding the Giro routes i have been missing out on the fun reports about Shamilton , Flandis & Hiccupie's "mea culpa's"!

Will try to catch up next week but last night i came across Shane Bannon , Neil Stephens & Matt White in Bergamo with some bright and shiny "greenedge vehicles" !

Was introduced to the new CEO as well , lurking nearby was an "aussie" who in 2004 said he didn't want an intro to Charlie Gaul as he had not won 5 TDF 's !

Told me we didn't move in the same circles but on reflection decided to shake hands , must have found his manners

Sounds like an utter and complete sheissehead.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Sh!theads aside for the moment to entertain a hypothetical question. When Armstrong, Bruyneel, Verbruggen and McQuaid are all exposed as liars in this Tour of Suisse doping positive; will their "credibilty" be on a level playing field with Hamilton and Landis? ... or somewhere well below?

 

[Walkman]

Taking PED's doesn't make one a stranger to virtue. To even ask the question is to fall for LA's propaganda.

Really, it's easy to see why someone guilty of doping may lie for a while; it's harder to understand why anyone innocent of doping would suddenly admit to something that never happened.

Sums it up pretty good.

Do people seriously believe that Landis and Hmilton were telling the truth for all those years and then decided to start lying when questioned in front of a grand jury?

 

[Mambo95]

nobody is credible,thats why investigation takes so much time

You're absolutely right.

Armstrong says and spins all sorts of nonsense. Little of what he says is believable these days.

Landis is seen as the beacon of all truth by some, but still claims he didn't take testosterone at the 2006 Tour. He's also realised that he's acquired disciples so knows that anything he says now has sycophantic believers.

Hamilton says some things, but you get the impression he's holding some things back. (I think he's the most believable so far)

All the others are not credible and part of the 'Omerta', because they only testified to a Grand Jury and have not gone on 60 Minutes/Jerry Springer/Oprah/Jeremy Kyle to tell the world.

 

[Zweistein]

I still laugh about reports of Armstrong needing to tap the brakes while going through the turns up Alp d'Huez.

 

[70kmph]

Novitzsky may not wish to use Hamilton or Landis as he always has another 10 witnesses from the team to choose from such as Hincapie etc much more difficult to attack their credibilty, there are so many non riders as well. Bus drivers, masseurs or old girlfriends who've witnessed the worst. The list must be endless.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

When LA, JB, Verbruggen and McQuaid are all exposed as liars in this Tour of Suisse doping positive; will their "credibility" be on a level playing field with Hamilton and Landis? ... or somewhere well below?

That's an interesting question. Below is the initial thought, because they altered not only the chance, but the outcome.

It also may depend on their honesty, how much they admit. If they admit all, perhaps they will get some sympathy. But I don't see these four people admitting to much until faced with likely jail time.

I still laugh about reports of Armstrong needing to tap the brakes while going through the turns up Alp d'Huez.

He wasn't the only one. Read Willy Voet's Breaking the Chain. He talks about many races in 96-98 where Festina and other riders did the same. The 98 Tour de Romandie riders were so fast they were going up several climbs in the big chain ring, and braking around some corners.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Credibility

With respect I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. If you believe someone on an issue then that person has credibility on that issue. I suggest a better distinction is the difference between credibilty and general reputation for telling the truth.

If Tyler Hamilton (TH) recommended to me I buy a certain model of bike I would probably give his recommendation credibility because of his experience as a cyclist.

On the other hand if TH wanted to go into business with me, he would probably have no credibility with me, due to his willingness to lie and cover up about his doping.

The point is they are different issues. In the LA doping issue there are a myriad of factors one has to take into account. Was LA close enough to TH to let him see him taking a PED, to discuss it and to discuss methods of using? - Yes. Did TH have a reason to lie and cover up at the time? - Yes. Does TH have a reason to lie and cover up now? - No, or he goes to jail like Marion Jones for lying to either the grand jury or Federal investigators.

So if you believe TH is telling the truth then he is credible on that issue at that moment in time. In determining "truth" or credibility one must take into account the issue, all the relevant circumstances and the context. Then on the basis of the big picture ask one's self is it more likely than not TH is telling the truth and thus credible.

To simply say TH is not credible because he is a past doper and lied about it is too simplistic an approach to the issue of credibility.

 

[Oldman]

With respect I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. If you believe someone on an issue then that person has credibility on that issue. I suggest a better distinction is the difference between credibilty and general reputation for telling the truth.

If Tyler Hamilton (TH) recommended to me I buy a certain model of bike I would probably give his recommendation credibility because of his experience as a cyclist.

On the other hand if TH wanted to go into business with me, he would probably have no credibility with me, due to his willingness to lie and cover up about his doping.

The point is they are different issues. In the LA doping issue there are a myriad of factors one has to take into account. Was LA close enough to TH to let him see him taking a PED, to discuss it and to discuss methods of using? - Yes. Did TH have a reason to lie and cover up at the time? - Yes. Does TH have a reason to lie and cover up now? - No, or he goes to jail like Marion Jones for lying to either the grand jury or Federal investigators.

So if you believe TH is telling the truth then he is credible on that issue at that moment in time. In determining "truth" or credibility one must take into account the issue, all the relevant circumstances and the context. Then on the basis of the big picture ask one's self is it more likely than not TH is telling the truth and thus credible.

To simply say TH is not credible because he is a past doper and lied about it is too simplistic an approach to the issue of credibility.

Agreed. And if your name is Weiner you won't lose your Congressional seat because you took shaved-chest picture of yourself, sent them to women and effectively cheated on your wife and then lied about it. Are you credible when you apologize and admit the facts? Yes. Electable? Probably not but the test of credilibility is the same.
He'll do well in the male pin-up calendar game, however.

 

[c&cfan]

Agreed. And if your name is Weiner you won't lose your Congressional seat because you took shaved-chest picture of yourself, sent them to women and effectively cheated on your wife and then lied about it. Are you credible when you apologize and admit the facts? Yes. Electable? Probably not but the test of credilibility is the same.
He'll do well in the male pin-up calendar game, however.

is merckx credible?

why he is worthy of admiration and lance isn't?

 

[pmcg76]

is merckx credible?

why he is worthy of admiration and lance isn't?

Simple, Merckx never said:

"You know, I survived cancer, no way would I ever risk my health by taking PEDs" or something to that affect

Dpoing is one thing, hijacking the cancer community to try and cover your doping is something different, entirely unworthy of admiration, only disdain.

 

[hrotha]

Simple, Merckx never said:

"You know, I survived cancer, no way would I ever risk my health by taking PEDs" or something to that affect

Dpoing is one thing, hijacking the cancer community to try and cover your doping is something different, entirely unworthy of admiration, only disdain.

Wait a minute, how the hell is Merckx credible at all? Have you read any of the stuff he's said in the last 20 years or so? Right now, he's part of the problem and he needs to go.

 

[Oldman]

Wait a minute, how the hell is Merckx credible at all? Have you read any of the stuff he's said in the last 20 years or so? Right now, he's part of the problem and he needs to go.

He is still allowed to voice his opinion although you are correct on it's believability. Eddie's not doing his legacy any favors drawing comparisons to his time or attempting to "confirm" the status of a rider.

 

[Benotti69]

Wait a minute, how the hell is Merckx credible at all? Have you read any of the stuff he's said in the last 20 years or so? Right now, he's part of the problem and he needs to go.

absolutely, and Hinault too.

 

[thirteen]

Wait a minute, how the hell is Merckx credible at all? Have you read any of the stuff he's said in the last 20 years or so? Right now, he's part of the problem and he needs to go.

absolutely, and Hinault too.

so who out there is credible?

 

[Oldman]

so who out there is credible?

Tyler, partially. He didn't touch on his USACycling "roots" in the 60 minutes interview. It would be refreshing to have him talk about the very first influences. I would love to hear the truth from Chiappucci...

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

so who out there is credible?

Landis, Hamilton, Jaksche, Bassons, Kohl, Manzano, Simeoni, Gaumont or at least more credible than the likes of McQuaid, Armstrong, Millar, Wiggins etc

A good rule of thumb is - if a rider speaks out and then can't get a job then he is pretty credible.

 

[pmcg76]

Tyler, partially. He didn't touch on his USACycling "roots" in the 60 minutes interview. It would be refreshing to have him talk about the very first influences. I would love to hear the truth from Chiappucci...

Ha, Chiappucci did once admit to doping during the Ferrari trial but then changed his story at a later date, credible witness like Bortolami.

 

[thirteen]

Landis, Hamilton, Jaksche, Bassons, Kohl, Manzano, Simeoni, Gaumont or at least more credible than the likes of McQuaid, Armstrong, Millar, Wiggins etc

A good rule of thumb is - if a rider speaks out and then can't get a job then he is pretty credible.

i like your definition

(sad but true)

 

[Benotti69]

Landis, Hamilton, Jaksche, Bassons, Kohl, Manzano, Simeoni, Gaumont or at least more credible than the likes of McQuaid, Armstrong, Millar, Wiggins etc

A good rule of thumb is - if a rider speaks out and then can't get a job then he is pretty credible.

Which shows how low the sport is. not much gonna change when nearly all the DS are former dopers (inc JV) and McQuaid running the UCI.

Is there a current DS with not doping history?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Which shows how low the sport is. not much gonna change when nearly all the DS are former dopers (inc JV) and McQuaid running the UCI.

Is there a current DS with not doping history?

Indeed, and if you can't DS then you are employed as an 'advisor', or you can get a gig as a 'manager'.

If however, you speak out you might if you are lucky be allowed to run a bike shop in Vienna