- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,855
- 1
- 0
I have heard that Cecchini has retired. He comes from a very wealthy family and does not need to work anymore. He is almost 70 years old.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
Race Radio said:I have heard that Cecchini has retired. He comes from a very wealthy family and does not need to work anymore. He is almost 70 years old.
Race Radio said:I have heard that Cecchini has retired. He comes from a very wealthy family and does not need to work anymore. He is almost 70 years old.
Christian said:That would make sense. Apparently his father was a millionaire (of course if it was in Lira that doesn't necessarily mean all that much)
Race Radio said:IIRC his father owned a shirt making factory. Not sure if it survived, most of those mid sized Italian business have moved their production to China.
JPM London said:I actually think he doesn't have anything to do with dope, but when approached by his riders has introduced them to the people he knew would be able to take of them in a secure and professional manner fully well knowing the riders would do it anyway and that he might as well make sure it was done properly.
D-Queued said:If you say so.
But, I think this is more true of the bike manufacturers going to Taiwan than it is of the high end Italian shirt factories moving to China. If you want hand-stitched buttonholes, stick with Italy.
Dave.
Race Radio said:Not high end. Mid range. High end still doing well.
Huge portions of mid range manufacturing has moved overseas.....or even import Chinese workers to Italy. The Venato, Lombardia, and the area west of Florence especially hard hit.
JMBeaushrimp said:That seems to be the way it works across many teams.
It also adds credence to the proposed consequence of TEAMS getting spanked rather than solely individual RIDERS. It would be a rare thing indeed to have a solo rider, working his own program with no team knowledge, at the Pro Tour level.
Whether C was doping riders or not, I'd be confident in stating that he knew who was doing what.
And that's a lot of 'what'...
the delgados said:According to Hamilton, Cecchini said three qualities are needed to win the Tour:
1) You need to be extremely fit
2) You have to be extremely skinny
3) You have to keep your hematocrit up
In Cecco's eyes, rule number 3 is a regrettable and unavoidable fact of life.
AcademyCC said:If you look in the acknowledgement list at the back of the secret race. Tyler addresses cecco and his family as 'his european family'. I'm undecided but gut feeling is Tyler is hiding something here.
the delgados said:According to Hamilton, Cecchini said three qualities are needed to win the Tour:
1) You need to be extremely fit
2) You have to be extremely skinny
3) You have to keep your hematocrit up
In Cecco's eyes, rule number 3 is a regrettable and unavoidable fact of life.
fmk_RoI said:Fabian Cancellara in his recently translated authorised biography, talking about Luigi Cecchini:And, from the same, on why he didn't have to dope:"'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.'"Deets"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."
Of the responses this drew on Twitter this is by far my fave.
fmk_RoI said: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.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.
(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."
fmk_RoI said:Re Cecchini, Conconi and the prescriptions
AFAIK, the only real link between Cecco and Conconi is that he was initially a part of the Ferrara investigation, that when the authorities hit the pharmacy in Bologna they found there prescriptions issued by Cecchini. The dates on the prescriptions, I don't know. Those who know the matter better, maybe you can provide them. Whatever the dates (pre or post 1996), the authorities dropped Cecchini from the case (he says they never even questioned him about it). How that can possibly make Cecchini a well known associate of Conconi I don't know. Me, call me picky, but I'd expect a little bit more evidence for him to be a well known associate.
(Also, Cecchini in at least one interview I've seen says he sued journalists over this - now lots of people claim they'll initiate cases, I know, it's bollox. But Cecchini also claims that he won his cases and received compensation. If someone wants to ferret out reports about these lawsuits and the reality of their outcomes, go for it. This of course does not prove he was innocent, I don't claim it does. But it does raise questions about the reports themselves. Which is why what's said in a court case is more important than what is alleged in a news story before it gets to court.)
The issue here isn't whether Cecco was a dirty doctor or not - I think we're all agreed on the reality of that. The issue here is whether he was as dirty as we thought. We have claims from Riis, from Dekker, from Jaksche, from Millar, from Hamilton, from Cancellara all suggesting at the very least that - by the time they dealt with him - Cecco had got the hang of compartmentalisation, certainly where they were concerned. (Hamilton's version of reality is of particular relevance there.) Rather than simply dismiss those claims out of hand as being the lies of lying liars, I think it's worth entertaining them and seeing where they lead us, examine what they tell us about what we think we know. But then that's me, I don't need the world to be black and white, good guys and bad guys (or, round here, bad guys and more bad guys).
WRT the piccies above, and particularly the syringe. Yes, I think drawing blood is proof of doping, of course it is. It's all the proof we need and more besides. If you take it out, of course you put it back in. Everyone's seen Hancock.
In all the years I trained with him he never once suggested that I use doping.
What did he suggest you use instead?In all the years I trained with him he never once suggested that I use doping.