Cancellara

Page 26 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

sniper said:
But with the recent release of juicy biographies such as Dekker's, this one from Cancellara sounds like a total waste of time and space, as well as an insult to the brain.
I look forward to your reviews of those "juicy biographies" you're full of praise for. I hope you've got past the cover with them and aren't just judging them on little bits you've read about on the interweb...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
I look forward to your reviews of those "juicy biographies" you're full of praise for. I hope you've got past the cover with them and aren't just judging them on little bits you've read about on the interweb...
Is there a book review section? Looks like you could make yourself useful....... :)
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
And, from the same, on why he didn't have to dope:
"I was indeed around at a time when doping was unfortunately a very topical issue, but you have to make a distinction between those who specialised in the Grand Tours and those riders who focused on the classics, like me. For classics riders, doping wasn't something that could make them better."
Oh my God :rolleyes: Sometimes is much better simply to keep your mouth shut!
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Fabian Cancellara in his recently translated authorised biography, talking about Luigi Cecchini:
"'He came straight to the point with me,' says Cancellara. '"If you've come here to find drugs to make you go faster, there's the door." He was quite clear. He never mentioned doping to me. Doping was never an issue for me.'"
And, from the same, on why he didn't have to dope:
"I was indeed around at a time when doping was unfortunately a very topical issue, but you have to make a distinction between those who specialised in the Grand Tours and those riders who focused on the classics, like me. For classics riders, doping wasn't something that could make them better."
Deets

Of the responses this drew on Twitter this is by far my fave.
Lol. The funny thing is that he threw the GT contenders under the bus!!! :D
 
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
Yes, he doped and motor-doped, but he sure was fun to watch!

His attack in 2010 Tour of Flanders will surely go down as one of the most legendary rides.
More impressive than Froome at Ax-3 and Ventoux 2013, PSM 2015, Lance at Sestriere 1999, Alpe 2001, Luz Ardiden 2003?
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Fabian Cancellara in his recently translated authorised biography, talking about Luigi Cecchini:
"'He came straight to the point with me,' says Cancellara. '"If you've come here to find drugs to make you go faster, there's the door." He was quite clear. He never mentioned doping to me. Doping was never an issue for me.'"
And, from the same, on why he didn't have to dope:
"I was indeed around at a time when doping was unfortunately a very topical issue, but you have to make a distinction between those who specialised in the Grand Tours and those riders who focused on the classics, like me. For classics riders, doping wasn't something that could make them better."
Deets

Of the responses this drew on Twitter this is by far my fave.
His autobiography is at least printed on pretty good paper and has a lot of nice photos ;).
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Fabian Cancellara in his recently translated authorised biography, talking about Luigi Cecchini:
"'He came straight to the point with me,' says Cancellara. '"If you've come here to find drugs to make you go faster, there's the door." He was quite clear. He never mentioned doping to me. Doping was never an issue for me.'"
my fave.
This quote is almost exactly the same as what T. Dekker said about Cecchini, so there could be some truth to it.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

classicomano said:
fmk_RoI said:
Fabian Cancellara in his recently translated authorised biography, talking about Luigi Cecchini:
"'He came straight to the point with me,' says Cancellara. '"If you've come here to find drugs to make you go faster, there's the door." He was quite clear. He never mentioned doping to me. Doping was never an issue for me.'"
my fave.
This quote is almost exactly the same as what T. Dekker said about Cecchini, so there could be some truth to it.
That's a stretch.
I can find you 5 guys saying Ferrari never mentioned doping and another 5 saying Sassi never mentioned doping.
etc.
 
Dec 25, 2016
96
0
0
I thought this was a place for rational discussion over doping. Luigi Cecchini never mentioning dope is like saying his son is clean...
1)The 96 olympic race had 3 of his clients on the podium including Sorensen (finished 2nd or 3rd, Richard won) who admitted to using dope for most of his career...
2)Hamilton was working with him when he won the olympic TT...
3)Cecchini is a well known associate of Prof.Conconi...
4)He worked with Riis when he won the TDF and got the infamous nickname Mr.60%...
The guy is a doping Dr. a good one compared to most seeing the palmares of the riders who worked with him including Dekker's only big wins that came when he was working with Dr.Cecchini...
Why do people listen to what Dekker has to say? He's a lying crook who spent all of his money on whores and drugs and is now looking a for quick way to make some cash.
 
Re: Re:

lartiste said:
His autobiography is at least printed on pretty good paper and has a lot of nice photos ;).
You've seen it? I actually don't know about the paper - it works for the photos, def, but it's awful on the text. I prefer what Guy Andrews did with the LeMond book, using two different paper stocks.
 
Re: Re:

classicomano said:
This quote is almost exactly the same as what T. Dekker said about Cecchini, so there could be some truth to it.
As the linked article notes, it's also in line with what David Millar and Tyler Hamilton have said. And - if memory serves me correctly here, someone say if I'm wrong - it's also in line with what Jörg Jaksche has said. However, if you pay attention to what Hamilton says Cecchini actually said, you'll see it's not nearly as clear cut as it may seem to some.
 
Re:

ThePopeOfDope said:
I thought this was a place for rational discussion over doping. Luigi Cecchini never mentioning dope is like saying his son is clean...
1)The 96 olympic race had 3 of his clients on the podium including Sorensen (finished 2nd or 3rd, Richard won) who admitted to using dope for most of his career...
2)Hamilton was working with him when he won the olympic TT...
3)Cecchini is a well known associate of Prof.Conconi...
4)He worked with Riis when he won the TDF and got the infamous nickname Mr.60%...
The guy is a doping Dr. a good one compared to most seeing the palmares of the riders who worked with him including Dekker's only big wins that came when he was working with Dr.Cecchini...
Why do people listen to what Dekker has to say? He's a lying crook who spent all of his money on whores and drugs and is now looking a for quick way to make some cash.
I can see why certain Clinic regulars would take issue with Cancellara's claim - and Dekker's and Hamilton's and Millar's and (?) Jaksche's - I mean you've just presented a brilliant case of guilt by association - zero actual evidence, just lots of innuendo - only for all those clients of Cecchini's to point out that it wasn't the way you think it was. So, clearly, in order to hold to the guilt by association doctrine, we must insist that Cancellara, Dekker, Hamilton, Millar, Jaksche (?) are all telling porkies. Which, of course, they would, cause they're dopers, and we can only believe dopers when they say something that we agree with.

(Did Riis also deny that he and Cecchini discussed doping when he was a rider? So many books, so little I can be bothered remembering any more.)

As for the claim that Cecchini is a well known associate of Prof Conconi - again, I'm going to go from memory here, but Cecchini has IIRC said he only ever met Conconi a couple of times, conferences and the like, he certainly didn't train under him and certainly isn't an associate. Do you have evidence of their association?

Edit: here's what Cecchini said about Conconi
"Everywhere they call me a pupil of Conconi but I only know him from conventions for sports physicians. I met him only once. I also was only once at the Ferrara university. Still my name is being linked with that university in the media. Why? I don't have a clue. I also wasn't in close contact with Ferrari. We worked together for one season with Ariostea. Our contact was dry and business related but with mutual respect."
 
Dec 25, 2016
96
0
0
Right so you value the opinion of dopers more of that of Sandro Donati. I'm not one to throw around insults but you're one big gullible individual.
1,2 maybe even 3 association can be considered bad luck or coincidences but not the 10s Cecchini has...
Since you're clearly new to the sport of cycling here is an article in Italian from 98 (http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1998/08/13/il-doping-in-farmacia-trema-anche-la.html) I'm guessing prescription filled with his name are also a case of bad luck...

And since you clearly value the opinion of dopers why not mention Manzano? Are the stories of that doper not trustworthy in your eyes? Is him mentioning Fuentes and Cecchini worked together not go well with how you perceive Team CSC, you know the team involved in Puerto with Basso....
 
Re:

ThePopeOfDope said:
Right so you value the opinion of dopers more of that of Sandro Donati. I'm not one to throw around insults but you're one big gullible individual.
Laugh? I very nearly slapped my thigh.
ThePopeOfDope said:
1,2 maybe even 3 association can be considered bad luck or coincidences but not the 10s Cecchini has...
And as I said earlier, you need to pay attention to what Hamilton actually said about Cecco. You seem incapable of doing nuance.
ThePopeOfDope said:
Since you're clearly new to the sport of cycling here is an article in Italian from 98 (http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1998/08/13/il-doping-in-farmacia-trema-anche-la.html) I'm guessing prescription filled with his name are also a case of bad luck...
How can I ever express my gratitude to such knowledgeable person as you helping a poor little newbie like me learn about the past? I am not worthy of your time, but I thank you for it.
ThePopeOfDope said:
And since you clearly value the opinion of dopers why not mention Manzano? Are the stories of that doper not trustworthy in your eyes? Is him mentioning Fuentes and Cecchini worked together not go well with how you perceive Team CSC, you know the team involved in Puerto with Basso....
You prove my point for me: some choose to believe that which they want to believe and dismiss the rest as the lies of lying dopers.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
ThePopeOfDope said:
I thought this was a place for rational discussion over doping. Luigi Cecchini never mentioning dope is like saying his son is clean...
1)The 96 olympic race had 3 of his clients on the podium including Sorensen (finished 2nd or 3rd, Richard won) who admitted to using dope for most of his career...
2)Hamilton was working with him when he won the olympic TT...
3)Cecchini is a well known associate of Prof.Conconi...
4)He worked with Riis when he won the TDF and got the infamous nickname Mr.60%...
The guy is a doping Dr. a good one compared to most seeing the palmares of the riders who worked with him including Dekker's only big wins that came when he was working with Dr.Cecchini...
Why do people listen to what Dekker has to say? He's a lying crook who spent all of his money on whores and drugs and is now looking a for quick way to make some cash.
I can see why certain Clinic regulars would take issue with Cancellara's claim - and Dekker's and Hamilton's and Millar's and (?) Jaksche's - I mean you've just presented a brilliant case of guilt by association - zero actual evidence, just lots of innuendo - only for all those clients of Cecchini's to point out that it wasn't the way you think it was. So, clearly, in order to hold to the guilt by association doctrine, we must insist that Cancellara, Dekker, Hamilton, Millar, Jaksche (?) are all telling porkies. Which, of course, they would, cause they're dopers, and we can only believe dopers when they say something that we agree with.

(Did Riis also deny that he and Cecchini discussed doping when he was a rider? So many books, so little I can be bothered remembering any more.)

As for the claim that Cecchini is a well known associate of Prof Conconi - again, I'm going to go from memory here, but Cecchini has IIRC said he only ever met Conconi a couple of times, conferences and the like, he certainly didn't train under him and certainly isn't an associate. Do you have evidence of their association?

Edit: here's what Cecchini said about Conconi
"Everywhere they call me a pupil of Conconi but I only know him from conventions for sports physicians. I met him only once. I also was only once at the Ferrara university. Still my name is being linked with that university in the media. Why? I don't have a clue. I also wasn't in close contact with Ferrari. We worked together for one season with Ariostea. Our contact was dry and business related but with mutual respect."
There is no guilt, just reasonable suspicion.
Associations are evidence. I think you need a new dictionary.
 
Dec 25, 2016
96
0
0
You like to believe in dopers I live to believe in facts.
Why would a sport Dr have prescriptions of doping products filled in with his name? Something you conveniently decided not to reply to by using sarcasm as a diversion.
Another case of guilt by association? That was enough to warrant suspicion with Dr.Ferrari why not Cecchini?
 
Re:

ThePopeOfDope said:
Still avoiding the FACT prescriptions of doping products where filled by Dr.Cecchini... Time for you to go to the BikeRadar forum, those are people that deal in alternative facts like yourself.
Says the poster who dodged the question on Cecco being a well known associate of Conconi. You get what you give in this game: you want to give a little? Or do you just want to rant?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
<snipped>

Edit: here's what Cecchini said about Conconi
"Everywhere they call me a pupil of Conconi but I only know him from conventions for sports physicians. I met him only once. I also was only once at the Ferrara university. Still my name is being linked with that university in the media. Why? I don't have a clue. I also wasn't in close contact with Ferrari. We worked together for one season with Ariostea. Our contact was dry and business related but with mutual respect."
Why believe someone who enabled people to cheat?

That is stupid.
 
I don't have my copy of The Secret Race at hand so I'm quoting from Google Books which cuts out a page, but Hamilton says:
He also had a revolutionary and refreshing attitude about doping, which is to say, he encouraged me to dope as little as possible. He never gave me any Edgar, never handed me so much as an aspirin...
From the book, Cecchini's emphasis seems to really be on training and diet.
 
Re:

ThePopeOfDope said:
In BIG this all started with the investigation of Conconi and his assistants...etc ( tutto nasce dall' indagine sul professor Conconi e sui suoi assistenti Ferrari, Grazzi, Mazzoni e Cecchini * "Ci sono dei risultati")
http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/1999/giugno/30/Signor_Gotti_siamo_carabinieri__ga_0_9906306544.shtml

So what's your excuse now?
Is that your proof of Cecco being a well known associate of Conconi?

[Did I dream it or did a rule not get created saying foreign language links needed to be provided in translation?]
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY