Cunego: I can win clean

[Angliru]

RIght on brother. I have a hard time lumping Lance in with all of this pesimistic talk but you gotta believe in something. He has never tested positive unlike all the others and that is good enough for me for now.

So his association with Dr. Ferrari doesn't send up any red flags for you while everyone else associated with the good doctor was juiced? Armstrong is the exception and only consulted Ferrari for training tips?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I think his fluctuations in performance show he's telling it as it is. I, for one, really do hope he's telling the truth, and I do respect him quite a bit more for this.

Why? That could just as well be a symptom of blood doping. Every doper in XC skiing and biathlon that I can think of was inconsistent (or fairly consistent in world cup races but peaked majorly at the olympics/world championships).

Bingo. Notice how he is defending Basso of all people.

Cunego arguing that the Giro must be clean because he is up there is like arguing that the Tour must be clean because Wiggins was up there.

Sorry...ridiculous on its face.

The idea that Cunego and Basso are clean while others in the Giro aren't flies in the face of all available evidence on the effects of oxygen-vector doping.

So naturally the next step is to claim everyone is clean lol! Good business decision for Cunego, who wins plaudits from the media...until he gets busted.

There is no reason to think a clean rider with a naturally high crit can't compete with blood dopers. Performance-wise, it is irrelevant whether that high crit is natural or not. As for Basso, he is far from the form he was in when he won the Giro -06 by 10 min or when he dropped everyone but Lance in the Tour. If, he's doping, he might just be doing it for recovery.

 

[R.0.t.O]

Cunego is an awesome rider - one of the few guys that I'll 'support' - I was shouting for him on the Montalcino stage, but I'd be staggered if he's clean (at least by any meaningful definition - I could believe that he doesn't have a super programme like Vino, Lance or Basso'06 but that's as far as I'd go)

 

[craig1985]

RIght on brother. I have a hard time lumping Lance in with all of this pesimistic talk but you gotta believe in something. He has never tested positive unlike all the others and that is good enough for me for now.

Cool story bro.

 

[dickwrench]

Cool story bro.

Thank you. Who is that goofy looking dude in your avatar?

 

[craig1985]

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov aka 'The Tashkent Terror'.

Would put Mark Cavendish in his place if he were riding on this generation.

 

[dickwrench]

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov aka 'The Tashkent Terror'.

Would put Mark Cavendish in his place if he were riding on this generation.

Oh yes I know about him. I remember when he hit that barrier in the tour and wiped out really bad. But Cavendish is not so bad he just tell it like it is. I'm glad he is over his toothache but I don't know why his teeth made him peddle slower.

 

[Von Mises]

It's more consistent with the facts on the ground. The nature of the sport. The nature of oxygen-vector drugs and doping. As well as the testimony of the whistleblowers. The persistence of those who have facilitated and been instrumental in doping scandals at the top levels of the sport. It's more consistent with omerta, and the attitude of the peloton towards known dopers.

No, it is not necessarily more consistent. As somebody pointed "they are all doped" relays on circular logic. "They are all doped" is also the sign of heavy indoctrination, what forces you to see only what you want to see, it forces to selective arguments, selective interpretation etc.
We do not operate with perfect information, quite contrary. There are big holes in our information. The environment is not constant, but all the time changing: if somebody doped in past, it does not mean that they are doped in present. If whistleblower described situation 2005, it does not mean that his story was absolute truth, even more, it does not give us information abut situation in 2010. We just dont know. There are too many variables, unknowns, lack of information to make such absolutist statement "they are all doped".

Your position is prosecutors position, not the position of impartial and objective judge.

 

[Nick777]

Thank you. Who is that goofy looking dude in your avatar?

Obviously a hard core cycling fan..

 

[red_flanders]

RIght on brother. I have a hard time lumping Lance in with all of this pesimistic talk but you gotta believe in something. He has never tested positive unlike all the others and that is good enough for me for now.

That's ridiculous on it's face, and simply false.

 

[buckwheat]

RIght on brother. I have a hard time lumping Lance in with all of this pesimistic talk but you gotta believe in something. He has never tested positive unlike all the others and that is good enough for me for now.

Do you pray to Lance.?

 

[ludwig]

No, it is not necessarily more consistent. As somebody pointed "they are all doped" relays on circular logic. "They are all doped" is also the sign of heavy indoctrination, what forces you to see only what you want to see, it forces to selective arguments, selective interpretation etc.
We do not operate with perfect information, quite contrary. There are big holes in our information. The environment is not constant, but all the time changing: if somebody doped in past, it does not mean that they are doped in present. If whistleblower described situation 2005, it does not mean that his story was absolute truth, even more, it does not give us information abut situation in 2010. We just dont know. There are too many variables, unknowns, lack of information to make such absolutist statement "they are all doped".

Your position is prosecutors position, not the position of impartial and objective judge.

You sound like a lawyer.

The only way to make your position sound sensible is to provide concrete evidence things have changed since 2005. But that position quickly falls apart--we see the same GC contenders, the same director sportifs, the same omerta, the same attitudes in the peloton, the same continued doping scandals, the same designer drugs continually outpacing testing. Assuming things are pretty much the same as 2005 is the default reasonable position--the burden of proof is on those who insist conditions have somehow changed.

 

[rhubroma]

Why does Cunego get a by for saying Basso is humble after his "I was only intending to dope" when he got caught in Puerto after destroying everybody in the Giro the earlier month? That is stupid and he has never backed off from that.

The thing is, dickwrench, hypocrisy reigns supreme in the world of big time sport, so all we have is the human side to go on. Basso never admitted because he didn't have to, given that he was already banned for just attempted doping when most of his rivals were doped as he was but not implicated. The leading example of this is Valverde, which demonstrates also the nationalist and propagandistic nature of doping.

Basso has come back with approval of the likes of Cunego because of the humility he has demonstrated to his colleagues in Italy and in the Italian press. If you're not Italian, or reading the Italian dailies, you wouldn't know the full details of how he has behaved upon his comeback, which I can assure has demonstrated an exceptional humanity. That he didn't "admit" his culpability was merely connected to nature of his situation, and perhaps enforced upon him by certain powers that be. Cunego understands that and probably believes that he is now riding clean, as Aldo Sassi his trainer (also Evans') would swear upon.

 

[VeloCity]

Why does Cunego get a by for saying Basso is humble after his "I was only intending to dope" when he got caught in Puerto after destroying everybody in the Giro the earlier month? That is stupid and he has never backed off from that.

Cunego has never been caught but he is on lampre and won the giro in 2004 when everybody was doping in the giro. The AFL cracked down on doping in France so you had to dope to win the giro or vuelta back then.

Shouldn't you be giving Basso and Cunego the benefit of the doubt based on the "never tested positive" standard that you use for Armstrong? For the sake of consistency and all.

 

[dickwrench]

Shouldn't you be giving Basso and Cunego the benefit of the doubt based on the "never tested positive" standard that you use for Armstrong? For the sake of consistency and all.

Hey man Lance never came up with a stupid excuse like he only intended to dope.

I don't have anything against Cunego but to see him defend Basso after that stupid excuse made me take notice. Rhuboma I think can sum it up nicely I guess since what he says makes sense I guess.

 

[Galic Ho]

Hey man Lance never came up with a stupid excuse like he only intended to dope.

I don't have anything against Cunego but to see him defend Basso after that stupid excuse made me take notice. Rhuboma I think can sum it up nicely I guess since what he says makes sense I guess.

Memories. They are great aren't they. Lance spoke up for Basso and Ullrich after he beat them in 2005. Did you believe in them the next year, like Lance said you could? Cunego is a straighter shooter than Lance has ever been.

 

[dickwrench]

Memories. They are great aren't they. Lance spoke up for Basso and Ullrich after he beat them in 2005. Did you believe in them the next year, like Lance said you could? Cunego is a straighter shooter than Lance has ever been.

I know what Lance said it is in my signiture duh. His speach was about himself and not necessarily about his competitors because all you guys doubted his ability to kick a$$ clean and this is after he got rid of Ferrari. Obviously they were doped or else they wouldn't get so close to him on time. I believe in nobody but Lance because he trains the right way and he lost all that weight with the cancer and he never tests positive.

They only got close to him in 2003 because he crashed chasing doped Mayo in the Alps in the Dauphine Libere and he had some screwed up shoes and his break rubbed. And he was having problems at home I am sure it is hard to be a top athlete and not have the support of the people you love and have taken care of through the years and finally that kid with teh bag took him down. He got up and raged a scoreboard with a broken bike yeah now talk smack. Word. Lance has never tested positive or got caught up in the thing Ullrich and Basso did so all you have is conjecture that he is not just an outstanding talent of a rider.

You can not twist this and say he was talking about the people he beat with his speach becasue it is proven they were doped so don't go there.

 

[Roninho]

I don't get the remark. Cunego won the Giro d'Italia in an era where most topriders were on doping (or at least were exposed as users in the years after that giro). If he could win in that era (and apparently there is a better climate nowadays) why wouldn't he be able to win nowadays?

As for him not using dope: i simply don't trust anyone anymore. I really wouldn't be surprised if he was on a big programm at the time of his giro-win, but i also wouldnt be surprised if he was currently on a programm. Not because of him, but simply to many riders have been caught that i didnt expect .

 

[Von Mises]

You sound like a lawyer.

The only way to make your position sound sensible is to provide concrete evidence things have changed since 2005. But that position quickly falls apart--we see the same GC contenders, the same director sportifs, the same omerta, the same attitudes in the peloton, the same continued doping scandals, the same designer drugs continually outpacing testing. Assuming things are pretty much the same as 2005 is the default reasonable position--the burden of proof is on those who insist conditions have somehow changed.

Thats exactly what I am talking about. If you operate from the premise "all are dopers" you are forcing burden of proof to your opponents. For you it is a comfortable position, but it is wrong starting point, burden of proof is on you.

2005 was just an example, I could pick whatever year. And if talking about 2005, we dont even know that "all were doped" back then. And these statements, what you are making, these are either factually incorrect or irrelevant. All GC contenders are not the same, all DS are noot the same, attitudes are not the same etc. And even if they are same, it is still not enough. For instance, in 2005 I was a somker, then I quit. By your logic, it is imossible, because I am still the same person.

Lets imagine if our roles are reversed and I am going to say that during 1960-s or 1980-s all were doped or I just pick whatever name (like Lemond was picked in another thread) and say that rider X was doped. How do you refute my claim? Whatever you say, I can always say that it is inconclusive.

"All are dopers" is unreasonable premise. In every other field, science or courtroom, things are other way around.

 

[flicker]

If Cunegos smart he will shut up and ride his bike. Never believed he made a clean win and with good dope testing where are his results now? Telling.

 

[Franklin]

Sorry, but this is in the realm of hypocrisie so far it's sad.

1. Why would we surmise Cunego is clean? He sure has the palmares that put him in the absolute top. So he is the magical talented guy that can beat the dopers? As Ludwig said, that is rather unlikely considering the effects of doping. Inconsistency in itself is no measurement of being clean.
2. Basso??? you mean the guy who re-entered cycling and immediately started to compete in GT's. Everyone is frothing at the mouth about Vino, but Basso also won Trentino and as far as we know might have ended a lot higher in a GT than Vino will this year.

No really, hypocrisie is thick here. It's a few guys who get singled out here, while others are being getting the nod and wave treatment.

 

[samb01]

I don't get the remark. Cunego won the Giro d'Italia in an era where most topriders were on doping (or at least were exposed as users in the years after that giro). If he could win in that era (and apparently there is a better climate nowadays) why wouldn't he be able to win nowadays?

Because he was doped in 2004.

I've put forth a Cunego-is-clean argument here.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sorry, but this is in the realm of hypocrisie so far it's sad.

1. Why would we surmise Cunego is clean? He sure has the palmares that put him in the absolute top. So he is the magical talented guy that can beat the dopers? As Ludwig said, that is rather unlikely considering the effects of doping. Inconsistency in itself is no measurement of being clean.

Because Cunego has a natural sky-high hct which allows him to be more competitive riding clean against dopers than most other riders would be?

 

[Frosty]

Just out of interest how do we know he has a natural sky-high crit? I think they do test it against family members but it is possible that he has been able to keep it artificially high?

 

[Franklin]

Because Cunego has a natural sky-high hct which allows him to be more competitive riding clean against dopers than most other riders would be?

bolding by me....

1. I always thought that a natural sky high HCT isn't as good as going from 45 to say 55 (20% increase). Note that high altitude dwellers aren't exceptionally good at sports, whereas low-landers getting a altitude training are getting a big boost.
2. Natural according to his doctor? This is iron-clad evidence?

I love Damiano as a cyclist, but the proof of him being clean (as with Gilbert) is trusting his blue eyes. I won't say he is dirty, but the odds are against him.

And the washing "He used to be dirty, he isn't now" is silly. We have no proof either way.

Atm he is just as clean as Wiggo, Evans or AC. Noone is waving flags for being "clean" for those riders.