Cycling is entering a clean chapter, says Phil Liggett

[42x16ss]

Pseudoscientist!

If comparing current climb times to the likes of Ullrich in 97 and Pantani in 98 is pseudoscience then I'm happy to be called a pseudoscientist

 

[Benotti69]

A few years ago, sure, but not any more and you know it. Bassons was good enough to carry bottles for Festina at the TdF in the mid-late 90's and he was clean as they come. Didn't stop him getting shelled out the back but there was always others doing worse. The "super domestiques" on the other hand... I'm in total agreement.

Bassons was super talented,might have won a GT in a clean peloton.

Where and when did the culture to dope stop?

 

[TheGame]

Harmon's situation was fairly well known at the time.

Good to see him back doing the Rotterdam 6 day race.

He was public about it, hardly a secret.....unfortunately there is a bit more to it but as that part is not public

This.

But anyway, Liggett, what a fool.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes, Mr. Harmon and Anthony Doyle MBE provided top-notch
commentary at Rotterdam. Hopefully there will be a Six in the
UK in the next year or two.

Same Anthony who even after usada was defending armstrong on British public radio by saying the fbi lawsuits had proved Armstrong was clean and verbally abusing those who suggested Armstrong doped?


http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18285

 

[The Hitch]

As for mr Ligget he is an announcer, ex UCI commissaire and marginal bike rider. he represents the voice of cycling for decades and I think he is near the end of his skills as he makes more and more mistakes on air. What else is he going to do but defend the sport? I know there is a cadre of the unbelieving here in the clinic but he is not out of touch with reality in terms of his opinion but he definitely is an optimist and I think he is correct that the peloton is clearly shown signs of honest abilities. At least it does in my eyes and I have been playing and working in the sport since 1986. I get that at least in the clinic I have a minority view of the state of doping but I cannot agree with the more vociferous denizens of the clinic that all is dirty. The last 2 years I have not worked very much in the sport but everything looks like the cleanest racing I have seen since I was in cat 5.

This is just trolling.q

 

[BroDeal]

This is just trolling.q

He would still be angry with everyone here for doubting Hesjedal if Hesjedal had not admitted what everyone but Master50 already knew.

 

[jackstheman99@gmail.com]

Phil is a victim too

He was paid to do what we all would do for free. Follow the best cycling events around the world, meet and interview our heros,and describe the incredible panorama surrounding European cycling events. He was one of many who probs has knowledge the peletons were dirty but knew he would no longer work if he reported what he knew, and would probably end up being branded a troublemaker.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He was paid to do what we all would do for free. Follow the best cycling events around the world, meet and interview our heros,and describe the incredible panorama surrounding European cycling events. He was one of many who probs has knowledge the peletons were dirty but knew he would no longer work if he reported what he knew, and would probably end up being branded a troublemaker.

You know he co-own(ed/s) a South African goldmine with Lance and Paul Sherwen, right? It's a bit more than just "probs has knowledge the peletons were dirty".

I highly doubt "we all" would do it for free. I have far more interesting things to do than be a commentator for employment.

 

[42x16ss]

Bassons was super talented,might have won a GT in a clean peloton.

Where and when did the culture to dope stop?

It hasn't and I never said it has. The closest I've come to saying that is that the top riders can't go full *** like they have in the past and a good rider can make a living as a water carrier without dope if they choose to.

 

[VeloFidelis]

But that good rider can potentially become a better, and certainly a wealthier rider with some assistance. Do you really expect him not to resist the opportunity?... would you? ... Really??

 

[42x16ss]

But that good rider can potentially become a better, and certainly a wealthier rider with some assistance. Do you really expect him not to resist the opportunity?... would you? ... Really??

I'd like to think that a young, idealistic rider may be able to resist for a few years even though I'm probably dreaming. I guess I'm hoping that simply being a pro is enough for some guys and they don't see the need to put it all on the line like the team leaders do.

I'm open to the possibility I'm totally wrong but I'm convinced that I'm not, especially when riders like Bassons, (who was very talented but hardly a unique specimen) can win a stage of the Dauphine and finish a GT before the 50% rule even came into effect.

 

[MarkvW]

But that good rider can potentially become a better, and certainly a wealthier rider with some assistance. Do you really expect him not to resist the opportunity?... would you? ... Really??

I could resist it. It's a game that's economically stacked against the rider.

There are not many "wealthier" rider slots. Those that exist are being competed-for by talented dopers. It's a dog doping dog game.

Then there are the health benefits (as I've learned on the clinic). EPO, for example, will make your body a much more fertile ground for cancerous tumors. Testosterone increases cancer risk, accelerates baldness, can make you dependent on it by suppressing natural production, etc...

The decision to dope appears to be far more emotional than logical. You need to be a moron to do it. Fortunately for pro cycling, there are many candidates.

 

[VeloFidelis]

I would argue it is more logical. Athletes at this level generally understand their place in the talent pool. Top 5% gets you into the Pro ranks. The top 1% or 2% get to be the rock stars. Even if you can't break into that elite group with a "program", there is greater pressure to just maintain your position in a field of disposable players. Some modest results, a reputation as a reliable team player, can make for a better life. Sure beats that barista / bike messenger gig you had back home.

What compromises would you make to not be cut from the Tour squad? ...Ask VDV. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you are twenty years, and a half a world away... a little bit harder when it's actually your life.

 

[ustabe]

The decision to dope appears to be far more emotional than logical. You need to be a moron to do it. Fortunately for pro cycling, there are many candidates.

Well, yeah, it's emotional, it's sports. Why do young men risk concussions, Parkinson's, chronic arthritis, and all the other long-term risks in order to play professional football?

Athletes are much like soldiers. They fight for the guy in the hole next to them. They don't want to be the choad. And part of that is doing will do whatever the other guys are doing to keep their place on the team and in the sport. War doesn't make sense, either, but we get caught up in it.

After all, it's something they've been working at for years, it's something they love to do, and it only lasts a few years before the body starts slowing down. Hang on for the ride while you still can, and get off before you get caught or hurt.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A few years?

 

[blackcat]

I would argue it is more logical. Athletes at this level generally understand their place in the talent pool. Top 5% gets you into the Pro ranks. The top 1% or 2% get to be the rock stars. Even if you can't break into that elite group with a "program", there is greater pressure to just maintain your position in a field of disposable players. Some modest results, a reputation as a reliable team player, can make for a better life. Sure beats that barista / bike messenger gig you had back home.

What compromises would you make to not be cut from the Tour squad? ...Ask VDV. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you are twenty years, and a half a world away... a little bit harder when it's actually your life.

even bike messenger industry has been hurt by internet.

but good post

 

[Master50]

He would still be angry with everyone here for doubting Hesjedal if Hesjedal had not admitted what everyone but Master50 already knew.

BD
As for Ryder I was consistent to my morals. Innocent until proven guilty. That I was defending a man I have known since he was 16 is consistent with my principles. I was a commissaire for 25 years and I am still a regulator in real life. I am betting you would rather have a cop like me investigating a complaint against you than a person with your wet cat view of the world judging your guilt?
You just like to string them up! A hanging judge. You just want to believe every pro cyclist is a doper. Where is your moral line? Are you a cheater and believe everyone is just like you? Do you have any principles you defend? If they are all cheaters, why do you bother? Are you a bitter ex cat 1 who didn't make is as a rider and taking your wet cat image out to the world to reveal the horrible sport you hate so much? Your avatar seems very fitting, a wet miserable cat. This is the second time you have thrown that at me and both times I can say I am proud of my defence of all riders and demand of proof.
I suppose you are going to be right about many of these past events and I will continue to ask you prove it rather than guess correctly.

 

[Samson777]

BD
As for Ryder I was consistent to my morals. Innocent until proven guilty. That I was defending a man I have known since he was 16 is consistent with my principles. I was a commissaire for 25 years and I am still a regulator in real life. I am betting you would rather have a cop like me investigating a complaint against you than a person with your wet cat view of the world judging your guilt?
You just like to string them up! A changing judge. You just want to believe every pro cyclist is a doper. Where is your moral line? Are you a cheater and believe everyone is just like you? Do you have any principles you defend? If they are all cheaters, why do you bother? Are you a bitter ex cat 1 who didn't make is as a rider and taking your wet cat image out to the world to reveal the horrible sport you hate so much? Your avatar seems very fitting, a wet miserable cat. This is the second time you have thrown that at me and both times I can say I am proud of my defence of all riders and demand of proof.
I suppose you are going to be right about many of these past events and I will continue to ask you prove it rather than guess correctly.

Interesting post. The question about moral, is a complex one. One would perhaps say, that persons with strong morals, try to avoid making hurtful personal attacks. But then again, it's a complex question.

The argument saying: That because you are not naive about the doping part of cycling, you can not enjoy it, is getting very old. There is no reason, why that should be the case.

I do agree with you, that the cynic will most likely be right most about past doping events. ( as well as future) Since that's the way of the world. But now, you can just say( as you kind of did in the last part of the post) " Most likely X was doped, but I will not judge him before the evidence is there"

Is That not a pretty simple approach, which means a person can keep the principles you talk about, but also be rational?

 

[pmcg76]

Interesting post. The question about moral, is a complex one. One would perhaps say, that persons with strong morals, try to avoid making hurtful personal attacks. But then again, it's a complex question.

The argument saying: That because you are not naive about the doping part of cycling, you can not enjoy it, is getting very old. There is no reason, why that should be the case.

I do agree with you, that the cynic will most likely be right most about past doping events. ( as well as future) Since that's the way of the world. But now, you can just say( as you kind of did in the last part of the post) " Most likely X was doped, but I will not judge him before the evidence is there"

Is That not a pretty simple approach, which means a person can keep the principles you talk about, but also be rational?

I think this is very simple, if people believe the sport is rotten to the core and see no possibility for change they yes you have to wonder why they follow the sport. If they find it so offensive as many on here seem to do, then yes it makes no sense.

If people enjoy the sport even though they know there is doping, that means they have accepted that doping is part and parcel, therefore whats the point of *****ing about it all the time. If nothing is going to change(according to the experts here) what's the point complaining?

Lets be honest if you heard someone in real life whining about their job all the time, you would be likely to tell them to get a different job of STFU. I think the same principle applies to following pro cycling.

 

[the sceptic]

Maybe people enjoy discussing doping too? It is very much part of the game after all.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think this is very simple, if people believe the sport is rotten to the core and see no possibility for change they yes you have to wonder why they follow the sport. If they find it so offensive as many on here seem to do, then yes it makes no sense.

If people enjoy the sport even though they know there is doping, that means they have accepted that doping is part and parcel, therefore whats the point of *****ing about it all the time. If nothing is going to change(according to the experts here) what's the point complaining?

Lets be honest if you heard someone in real life whining about their job all the time, you would be likely to tell them to get a different job of STFU. I think the same principle applies to following pro cycling.

If people enjoy soccer even though they know there is poor umpiring, that means they have accepted that poor umpiring is part and parcel, therefore what's the point of *****ing about it all the time. If nothing is going to change (blah blah blah) what's the point complaining?

Your logic fails epically.

 

[gooner]

If people enjoy soccer even though they know there is poor umpiring, that means they have accepted that poor umpiring is part and parcel, therefore what's the point of *****ing about it all the time. If nothing is going to change (blah blah blah) what's the point complaining?

Your logic fails epically.

Poor comparison. In football, there is the debate on video technology which can rectify many of the aspects of poor decisions. It's even gradually coming in, as we see in goal line technology for the Premiership. It's a constructive discussion for the better running of the game and it's frustrating for fans when it's an issue that can easily be addressed.

It's entirely different to doping in cycling. It's worthwhile having a discussion on how to better procedures in minimising doping going forward but I accept there will always be some guys that will cross the line going forward. It's the nature of the world, it will always be in sport in some capacity and anyone who thinks it can be totally eradicated is living in cloud cuckoo land. I never believed the sport was finished and have always said with right governance we could get it on the right track. So far I've been impressed with Cookson and the changes he has made and the type of people brought in to oversee the commission. I'm optimistic about the future and I hope he continues along the same path. Some on here just think doping is a simple black and white issue and are just hammer and tongues lashing out at anyone who even has the slightest of suspicion against them where a doping only view seems to hold for someone that is remotely successful. It's just criticism after criticism and at times for the sake of it where it's so repetitive it ends up losing it's effect. I agree with pcmg, I do wonder why they are fans if they have got nothing good to say about the sport. l love to see them put in the environment themselves and in particular at the height of it in the 90s and early 00s and see how they would do on their moral high horse. I guarantee you won't be seeing too many Bassons or Scott Merciers among them.

And some enjoy the whole show and the Sky stuff is a classic example where we see guys saying they can't wait for the "Froome going full ***" nonsense and the making up of evidence against them.

There's too much of a "I won't be proved wrong" mentality where some are more interested in their opinions being personally vindicated over others. It just leads to default positions on anyone that is winning or improving(even when it's more realistic) and the guilty verdict is put down. Simply put, you can't be credible.

Maybe people enjoy discussing doping too? It is very much part of the game after all.

Thanks for proving my point above and in what I've said before.

 

[the sceptic]

For someone who thinks everyone is clean, and doesnt approve of the way the clinic discusses doping, you sure spend alot of time here.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Poor comparison. In football, there is the debate on video technology which can rectify many of the aspects of poor decisions. It's even gradually coming in, as we see in goal line technology for the Premiership. It's a constructive discussion for the better running of the game and it's frustrating for fans when it's an issue that can easily be addressed.

The game of soccer, poor umpiring and whinging about same has been going on for decades if not centuries.

It's a great comparison.

If you think the people brawling and arguing about the umpiring in a soccer match are providing constructive discussion for the better running of the game then your ability to think rationally should be brought into question.

Diving is another aspect of the second most boring game on the planet that is utterly ridiculous and whinged about the world over. There's certainly nothing constructive about that whinging either.

 

[gooner]

For someone who thinks everyone is clean,

Yeah, sure thing buddy.

and doesnt approve of the way the clinic discusses doping, you sure spend alot of time here.

By the law of you, one of the reasons we should come into the clinic is for the show. I should approve of that.

Others might have different, more interesting and constructive reasons.

The game of soccer, poor umpiring and whinging about same has been going on for decades if not centuries.

It's a great comparison.

If you think the people brawling and arguing about the umpiring in a soccer match are providing constructive discussion for the better running of the game then your ability to think rationally should be brought into question.

Diving is another aspect of the second most boring game on the planet that is utterly ridiculous and whinged about the world over. There's certainly nothing constructive about that whinging either.

Ridiculous.

There's no technology to help referees and the standard of refereeing isn't exactly of a high one these days. You just have to look at the Tiote's goal against City last week and the terrible decision there. A simple video replay would have stopped all the arguing and the Pardew rant at Pellegrini and the ref at half-time. Football is the most tribal of all sports so of course fans of the affected clubs are going to be enraged due to decisions like these directly influencing results but like I said already it's an issue which most definitely can be solved and improved on and one worth discussing. I'm not a fan of either City and Newcastle but still enjoyed watching the game even with the big decision going wrong. Many fans around the world would have felt the same.

On the diving issue, people have called for retrospective action for players who engage in it. The Eduardo incident against Celtic is a classic one when he got charged but later left off the hook by UEFA. That got widely criticised and if this was introduced it could have a significant impact. Honestly you don't know what you're talking about if you think these issues are not worthwhile paying attention to. Football is the most backward of all sports at embracing change. Majority of football fans will admit these faults in the game but praise other aspects of the game. They are widely talked about points on fan phone in shows. All these talking points in games are instant ones and quick instant responses during games when tensions and rivalries are high, are definitely going to be of the norm. You say nothing is going to change but we've seen the start with goal line technology introduced in the Premiership and that has been done on the backdrop of many years of players, managers, pundits, and fans highlighting the issue.

The point pcmg76 is making in regards to cycling is that some have nothing but total and endless criticism for the sport and have nothing good to say about it. They are on default for anyone who wins and have no hope for it going forward. Just look at Cookson and the Commission he set up where the same old suspects were taking issue with it. No praise or welcome of it or even reserve judgement on it. I don't know why they follow the sport if that's there position and following on from that, anyone who says he's in it for the show that doping brings, is no fan whatsoever of the sport.