Dr Ferrari -vs- Lemond

[eleven]

If I had a long history of being wrong then please point out where.

So are you saying that Public Strategies did not prepare the public powerpoint presentation for the Trek-Lemond case?

no, I didn't say that. If you read my post instead of what you wished I'd post, you'd see that.

Once you've done so, come on back.

 

[Epicycle]

Here is a link to an old (2006) CN report about the process' outcome.

That report was incorrect and it's unfortunate CN is still saying the same thing today. Ferrari wasn't absolved, the statute of limitations had run out.

 

[theswordsman]

I just read the entire thread. Interesting stuff. If the point of the OP and supporters was to discredit LeMond and support Dr. Ferrari, I think that pretty much failed. I'm sure the thread will continue, but so far I think it served some positive purposes.

A lot of newer cycling fans, and those who don't read doping stories, might have judged Ferrari by that article. I imagine the response got people to read, or to read again, Greg's post. The conversation here brought out a lot more information about him. Hard to find links have surfaced, and since everything here goes straight to Google, those will now be available to people who've never heard of this forum.

What the specific interest newcomers here don't seem to realize is that a lot of regular posters are passionate fans of the sport, with opinions and perspective gained by years of reading, observation and exchange. The more substantial an "opponent" in terms of clever speech or spin, the more they up their game. So this exercise not only failed to change any opinions, it also made them better prepared and more motivated for the battle still to come. Threads like this won't distract them, or wear them down. You're making them stronger. All the new guys aren't the battle - you're practice.

Cheers, everybody.

 

[tubularglue]

hope this is not a repost

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/32068763

open document.

copy if interested. might disappear

 

[Road Hazard]

Weelll, since I am not the researching type, I'll just point out the obvious:

Ferrari never says he didn't conduct doping regimens or assist dopers. He uses non-denial denial, like "I dissuaded" them from doping. Some cyclists asked about doping, "but never came back twice."

So, you dissuaded them but when they insisted you said, okie. They didn't come back, instead you went to their hotels to do the doping?

Whatever, of all the injustices in the world, performance enhanced sports is probably low on the importance scale, but its irritating.

 

[scribe]

Weelll, since I am not the researching type, I'll just point out the obvious:

Ferrari never says he didn't conduct doping regimens or assist dopers. He uses non-denial denial, like "I dissuaded" them from doping. Some cyclists asked about doping, "but never came back twice."

So, you dissuaded them but when they insisted you said, okie. They didn't come back, instead you went to their hotels to do the doping?

Whatever, of all the injustices in the world, performance enhanced sports is probably low on the importance scale, but its irritating.

all good points. I was thinking the same thing as I read his letter.

 

[VanceNichols]

LeMond correct in his blog post/ Bill Gifford article in Bicycling

Two excerpts from the download posted previously from Paging Dr Ferrari.


For the next decade, he was a hunted man-pursued by investigative reporters and law enforcement on the one hand and, on the other, by riders seeking his services. Erwann Menthéour, a French ex-pro who was one of the first athletes to be suspended for EPO use, in 1997, writes in his book, Secret Defense, of going to visit "il dottore."
In the waiting room, Menthour says, he saw "some of the greatest athletes in the world sitting
there, like a virgin on her first visit to the gynecologist.


This much is indisputable: If Ferrari agreed to work with you, and you could afford him-he typically charged between 10 and 20 percent of a rider's salary-it would make your career.

 

[Kennf1]

Weelll, since I am not the researching type, I'll just point out the obvious:

Ferrari never says he didn't conduct doping regimens or assist dopers. He uses non-denial denial, like "I dissuaded" them from doping. Some cyclists asked about doping, "but never came back twice."

So, you dissuaded them but when they insisted you said, okie. They didn't come back, instead you went to their hotels to do the doping?

Whatever, of all the injustices in the world, performance enhanced sports is probably low on the importance scale, but its irritating.

Yep, and he then makes the specific point that no athlete has died under his care. That's heartening.

 

[SpartacusRox]

So, now we have Ferrari (and all the credibility he carries) saying that yet another mysterious "confidant" "clearly mentions" not only Lemond's name but also his doctor's in relation to "a doping event". The guy is indignant to the point of responding to Lemonds very direct accusations of impropriety, yet comes back with nothing more than more smoke and innuendo.

It's been 21 years since 1989, when exactly is someone going to actually come forward?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'credibility' I don't think Ferrari will be called in any court case, but if he is it will be clearly established by the party calling him (the defence probably) that any conviction he had was absolved, therefore from a legal standpoint his credibility is hard to attack.

The Lemond innuendo aside I am sure that it would be easy to prove the truth of either sides assertions.

And no, I don't think Ferrari is good for the sport.

 

[Oldman]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'credibility' I don't think Ferrari will be called in any court case, but if he is it will be clearly established by the party calling him (the defence probably) that any conviction he had was absolved, therefore from a legal standpoint his credibility is hard to attack.

The Lemond innuendo aside I am sure that it would be easy to prove the truth of either sides assertions.

And no, I don't think Ferrari is good for the sport.

Again, if someone under Grand Jury testimony spills some testimony that implies an international connection for distribution of PED's; it's possible that the country of residence could prosecute under their own laws. If Ferrari is linked to actual dispensation of controlled substances (I would imagine he'd use an intermediary to avoid direct contact like every smart street dealer) he'd see old cases reopenned. Very unlikely based on all things having to string together from the US side. Who knows what's happening in Italy, though? There's been busts aplenty and maybe Omerta is in jeopardy on another front.

 

[rata de sentina]

Conconi and his acolytes Ferrari and Cecchini, the word credible tries desperately to escape when used on the same page as that bunch.

Sandro Donati, a man to admire, becoming familiar with his story can only lead one to contemt for Ferrari and his ilk.

Ferrari and Conconi ultimately extricated themselves from convictions by virtue of technicalities based upon the age of the evidence. This does not equate with their exoneration, that suggeststhey were proven to be not guilty which is entirely different from what in fact happened in the courts.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Excellent post, Swordsman.

Thanks Rox for saying that about Ferrari.

 

[Benotti69]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'credibility' I don't think Ferrari will be called in any court case, but if he is it will be clearly established by the party calling him (the defence probably) that any conviction he had was absolved, therefore from a legal standpoint his credibility is hard to attack.

The Lemond innuendo aside I am sure that it would be easy to prove the truth of either sides assertions.

And no, I don't think Ferrari is good for the sport.

If Ferrari dares show his face no doubt there will a line of cyclists or their families queuing to get in and tell their stories about him and his methods.

He has shown his face for his greatest patient/client LA, probably because he was asked and is still working for JB and well when your best client asks you too, your not going to say no, but since he did, CONI might now take an interest in what Ferarri is up to lately and the Polizia might also snoop around him, tap his phones etc.....might have been a bit unwise for Ferarri to put his above the battlements only to have it blown off.

 

[cyclingmad]

Yep, and he then makes the specific point that no athlete has died under his care. That's heartening.

A good point athletes didn't die following his program but others did that wanted the same results but couldn't afford to pay for his service.

He also had the unbeatable advantage of knowing exactly how the controls were being developed.

 

[ultimobici]

Conconi and his acolytes Ferrari and Cecchini, the word credible tries desperately to escape when used on the same page as that bunch.

Sandro Donati, a man to admire, becoming familiar with his story can only lead one to contemt for Ferrari and his ilk.

Ferrari and Conconi ultimately extricated themselves from convictions by virtue of technicalities based upon the age of the evidence. This does not equate with their exoneration, that suggeststhey were proven to be not guilty which is entirely different from what in fact happened in the courts.

Pity the courts didn't have the Scottish verdicts open to them - Guilty, Not Guilty & Not Proven

 

[python]

What I also find interesting is that Ferrari jumped into the fray instead of staying quiet.

i am not surprised at all he jumped into the fray. this is only days after texas himself on the french tele hinted at the same. cn reported it i think. great coordination baby.

funny im trying to catch up with the thread and so far no one mentioned the previously known but somehow forgotten facts

(I) ferrari's exoneration was based on some application of italian stature of limitation. yes it is a fact the eraced citizen conveniently forgot.
(ii) if the good doctor was just a coach why did armstrong officially severed contacts with him and why some teams forbade their riders any contacts with il dottore.

 

[Benotti69]

i am not surprised at all he jumped into the fray. this is only days after texas himself on the french tele hinted at the same. cn reported it i think. great coordination baby.

funny im trying to catch up with the thread and so far no one mentioned the previously known but somehow forgotten facts

(I) ferrari's exoneration was based on some application of italian stature of limitation. yes it is a fact the eraced citizen conveniently forgot.
(ii) if the good doctor was just a coach why did armstrong officially severed contacts with him and why some teams forbade their riders any contacts with il dottore.

Don't let he facts get in the way of Hate!

Fanboys should be embarrassed of their attempts to smear LeMond. There is no evidence against him and to come on here spouting their rubbish is embarrassing, but then again these people or person are not of a normal disposition...

 

[python]

Don't let he facts get in the way of Hate!

Fanboys should be embarrassed of their attempts to smear LeMond. There is no evidence against him and to come on here spouting their rubbish is embarrassing, but then again these people or person are not of a normal disposition...

one more thing i just recalled after finally catching up with the entire thread - the cited cn article of ferrari 'exoneration' is grossly inaccurate according to some discussion i read in the past where prime italian sources were cited and quoted.

staute of limitation was it.

also if memory serves, at the time the cn article of 'exoneration' wasn't the infamous il dottore himself writing for cyclingnews.com ? im pretty sure he was. not saying it was intentional but still interesting...

 

[rata de sentina]

I just want to follow up on my previous post and say that it is not entirely clear to me that Lemond would have been named in Donati's dossier which according to my understanding was more about the extent and nature of epo usage in cyclists and athletes which was rife at the time (1994) and didn't necessarily name individuals. Of course Ferrari is in a position to know what was in the dossier well before it came out into the open two years later since he was in cahoots with Conconi who was on CONI and had plenty of cronies in that organisation including it's head.

It is amazing to me how CONI has done a 180 turn around over the years. From actively hiding doping and trying to discredit campaigners like Donati it is now at the forefront pushing really hard. I would love to here some explanation from someone knowledgeable about the organisation how that has come about. Surely there must have been a massive turnover of personell. A significant part of the problem is the same administrators who oversaw the bad old doping days hang around forever. Maybe there might be some hope for reforming the UCI if CONI can undergo such a transformation.

 

[Animal]

Oh no, you did. I feel sorry for you.
Pharmstrong did chase him down. And? What has that to do with credibility?
Maybe in your universe...

In the entire universe of knowledgeable cycling fans.

Maybe you can fool the 3 week fans, but you fool nobody here.

A GC rider.. The GC rider of the time chasing down a nobody rider personally, and doing a "zip the lips" gesture?

You're pathetic.

 

[Hawkwood]

In the entire universe of knowledgeable cycling fans.

Maybe you can fool the 3 week fans, but you fool nobody here.

A GC rider.. The GC rider of the time chasing down a nobody rider personally, and doing a "zip the lips" gesture?

You're pathetic.

That event was so extraordinary that even Phil L had to admit that it was very odd (I think his exact words were harder than that).

 

[Bala Verde]

That report was incorrect and it's unfortunate CN is still saying the same thing today. Ferrari wasn't absolved, the statute of limitations had run out.

That's what I thought too, so I started digging a little in Italian papers. Here are two general press releases of the events.

Rinviato processo d'appello al dottor Ferrari
BOLOGNA, 22 novembre 2005 - E' stato rinviato a nuovo ruolo il processo d'appello al dottor Michele Ferrari, preparatore anche di Lance Armstrong, condannato un anno e mezzo fa dal giudice monocratico di Bologna - Maurizio Passarini - a un anno di reclusione e a 900 euro di multa per frode sportiva ed esercizio abusivo della professione di farmacista. Il processo per doping al medico sportivo era stato fissato per oggi, ma per problemi organizzativi della Corte di Appello di Bologna - in pratica per dedicare più ****io alla discussione della causa - è stata fatta slittare. Dovrà essere decisa una nuova data, probabilmente per inizio 2006.

Source Gazetto dello Sport

Doping, il dottor Ferrari assolto in appello
BOLOGNA, 22 maggio 2006 - La Corte di Appello di Bologna ha assolto per "prescrizione" dall'accusa di frode sportiva il medico Michele Ferrari, preparatore di numerosi atleti compreso il plurivincitore del Tour de France Lance Armstrong. Assoluzione, "perché il fatto non sussiste", anche per l'accusa di esercizio abusivo della professione di farmacista. Ferrari, difeso dall'avvocato Dario Bolognesi, era stato condannato il primo ottobre 2004 dal Giudice monocratico di Bologna a un anno di reclusione e 900 euro di multa.

Source Gazetto dello Sport

 

[python]

you need to dig into la repubblica contemporary articles in italian. also, as i mentioned above, ferrari being a commentator on cn at the time and possibly having friends on the staff may have something to do with the 'exoneration' article.

 

[Bala Verde]

you need to dig into la repubblica contemporary articles in italian.

and look for what, specifically?

You could search for those articles as well. I am not exactly swimming in time here...

also, as i mentioned above, ferrari being a commentator on cn at the time and possibly having friends on the staff may have something to do with the 'exoneration' article.

Or just plain journalism perhaps (hearing both sides)? Lemond mentions his name, he reads it and he requests to give his version of the story.

 

[zarathustra]

one more thing i just recalled after finally catching up with the entire thread - the cited cn article of ferrari 'exoneration' is grossly inaccurate according to some discussion i read in the past where prime italian sources were cited and quoted.

staute of limitation was it.

also if memory serves, at the time the cn article of 'exoneration' wasn't the infamous il dottore himself writing for cyclingnews.com ? im pretty sure he was. not saying it was intentional but still interesting...

Yes, you remember correct. Ferrari wrote articles for cn some years ago. And I remember a sycophantic interview from Tim Maloney with Ferrari (ca. 5 years ago). Maloney is wannabe-journalist who obviously got overexcited about the fact that big guys like Ferrari talked to him and wrote for the cn-website.
To reciprocate the favor Maloney absolutely lied in his article about the Italian appeals court decision in 2006. Ferrari only was saved by the statute of limitations. The court decision clearly states that Simeoni is a credible witness and there was no doubt that Ferrari gave the riders programs for training and doping (exact orders about when take which doping substance).

This can be found at page 27 of the court papers of Ferrari's trial. I have it on my hard disk. Bad luck for those liars who hoped that the document is no longer available in the web and so they can tell lies about the content.