Netserk said:
I'm not sure the name Moncoutie was mentioned in the actual post. It is discussed here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8839&highlight=Moncutie&page=151
It is not this one either:
06-21-13, 13:28
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I'm not sure the name Moncoutie was mentioned in the actual post. It is discussed here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8839&highlight=Moncutie&page=151
It is not this one either:
06-21-13, 13:28
I think the respected poster Libertine Seguros also cast his/her opinion over Moncoutie. A few did, RR was the prominent respected poster, i was a prominent disrespected posterBenotti69 said:
If you're saying that I called Moncoutié into doubt, you're mistaken. I was asking RR to elaborate, and they simply came back with the "I've explained how I've come to my opinion on Moncoutié" line, which appeared to be "I've spoken to some people and they've said a few things" (which had not previously been elaborated as far as I could see anyway). Which is fair enough, but without names of who said these things and what these things are that were said, it's very difficult to un-hear the voices of people like Gaumont and Millar vouching for him, because the doubts are far too vaguely explained for us to be able to actually make our own judgements on them. If it had been a less respected poster than RR who had called into suspicion one of the riders most keenly regarded as clean with a two word post, it would have been dismissed even by most Clinic posters as part of the usual conspiracy theories and negativity, accusations that dog the Clinic and have done for a long time. Being as RR, a poster held in high esteem, was then swimming against the tide in the Clinic in two respects - suggesting Froome/Porte etc. are clean and Moncoutié is not - many long-term posters wanted to know the reasons that RR had forwarded these hypotheses, because they ran counter to what we felt we expected.
While the fact that Moncoutié has been called into question by a respected source may mean that there are some niggling doubts, certainly more so than there had been, I still have yet to be provided with any justification for those claims beyond the vaguest statements, and in the absence of such justification I see no reason to change my stance until further information comes to light.
While the fact that Moncoutié has been called into question by a respected source may mean that there are some niggling doubts, certainly more so than there had been, I still have yet to be provided with any justification for those claims beyond the vaguest statements, and in the absence of such justification I see no reason to change my stance until further information comes to light.
sorry LS, I must have conflated you with another poster. It was someone besides RR who has cache here tho.
apologies for the mix up tho
apologies for the mix up tho
Libertine Seguros said:
Not with Millar. Other people he has vouched for include Piepoli, Froome (100%) and of course Contador ("riding that fast is impossible unless you are clean"
)Millar vouching for you is worth about as much as Liggett vouching for you.
Really? Piepoli, that's great stuffThe Hitch said:Not with Millar. Other people he has vouched for include Piepoli, Froome (100%) and of course Contador ("riding that fast is impossible unless you are clean"
Millar vouching for you is worth about as much as Liggett vouching for you.
Samson777 said:Really? Piepoli, that's great stuff
Don't forget Landis. After stage 17/2006 Millar vouched for him.
The Hitch said:Not with Millar. Other people he has vouched for include Piepoli, Froome (100%) and of course Contador ("riding that fast is impossible unless you are clean"
Millar vouching for you is worth about as much as Liggett vouching for you.
Be nice.
Millar didn't vouch for Gaumont did he ?
So Di Luca pretty much confirmed motors are being used in the peloton for the last 5/6 years. Cycling is amazing
He really hasn't confirmed anything other than mouth out with that "90% are doping" and "you can't TOP10 without doping", wow, any idiot could say that, he's just as useless as a snitch as when he was a rider.
webvan said:
He's apparently writing a book, wait and judge him on that. He was around a long time and probably saw a lot of doping in his time. I'd say he is a better judge than most about what levels of doping are going on in the peloton.
A better judge in theory, yes, as being part of the peloton for a while, so far he has nothing to show for it though, besides getting caught red handed several times. Rather than writing a book where he won't be naming names anyway because of the legal implications, he should give any evidence he has to CONI.
Hamilton spoke out before putting out a book.Benotti69 said:
You gotta admit, when you save it all for the book without doing anything to assert your credibility first, it's hard not to come across as self-serving and basically full of it.
Indeed, but that's a bit of a cop-out. Landis didn't have any credibility until he sent that email, but he earned it back by providing a coherent and consistent account of what had happened. Di Luca has chosen not to do anything of the sort.Benotti69 said:
hrotha said:
Maybe his book with give him credibility, if he does publish it.
Is Di Luca a whistleblower, nope not yet. I hope he does his best to expose the doping that he has proof off. I wont hold my breath.
Landis hit rock bottom before deciding to blow his whistle.
Di Luca aint gonna hit rock bottom.
I don't think that DiLuca comes out morally behind either Landis or Hamilton. DiLuca didn't contest his sanction with an expensive and fraudulent defense, like Landis and Hamilton did, and he certainly didn't beg money from his gullible fans, as Floyd (with the Fairness Fund) and Tyler (http://www.ibelievetyler.org) did.
I believe DiLuca about the 90%, and I believe him sincere. But still, he's just saying what we'd expect a doper to say. Another attraction in the filthy circus of pro cycling.
I believe DiLuca about the 90%, and I believe him sincere. But still, he's just saying what we'd expect a doper to say. Another attraction in the filthy circus of pro cycling.
Well put Mark. The bias is evident.
Landis is a hero whistle blower ! I remember him trying to blackmail Lemond
I thought he blew a whistle together part of the lawsuit.
Landis is a hero whistle blower ! I remember him trying to blackmail Lemond
I thought he blew a whistle together part of the lawsuit.
MarkvW said:
Until then, people who have at least given honest accounts of their activities, and named names, do have a moral 'advantage' if you like. Obviously in a pecking order, that still puts them behind those who confess without being caught, and those who never took and got out of the sport. Di Luca is the worst type, unrepentant cheat who currently isn't willing to lay it all out there.
Benotti69 said:
the culture of writing books is to make money, i dont see any change there.
Di Luca has no credibility as long as he is just making up numbers without backing them up.
Opening up is a lot more mainstream these days. The standards, at least mine, have been raised.MarkvW said:
hrotha said:
Not mine. For me the standards of professional cycling are the standards of the gutter. That's one of the reasons it's so much fun to follow.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 983
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram