-
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!
Seems to me as Zorzoli was in the unique position of knowing who had tested positive, who else also knew and when information was going to be released, or could magically end up in the public domain. In other words, if he was not a saint, he would be absolute best friend for a whole number of shady characters who wanted to make money by winning races, betting that specific people would win races, betting that people would lose races or be kicked out of races, ensuring that they didn't test positive, or a member of a team did or didn't test positive.
Given that he was kept when Cookson came in whilst there was quite a bit of smoke around some dealings, one might be led to think that he holds the keys to one of the UCI chambers of secrets, and important people don't want to see him go Chicken Floyd on them.
Hopefully someone who has legal or anti doping authority is following the multi currency money.
Given that he was kept when Cookson came in whilst there was quite a bit of smoke around some dealings, one might be led to think that he holds the keys to one of the UCI chambers of secrets, and important people don't want to see him go Chicken Floyd on them.
Hopefully someone who has legal or anti doping authority is following the multi currency money.
the sceptic said:
I think for a long period following that positive test he felt pretty damn desperate, in the existential sense of the word, and made some pretty desperate decisions to try and correct things.
Must be pretty crazy, one day you're living the dream, next day a horrow scenario unfolds.
But he's intelligent and certainly not someone who got where he got in cycling (up to 2006) by bullying or being an *******.
Anybody with the slightest bit of people knowledge can see that.
yespatterns said:
I care more about actions/effects than intentions. I don't care why Floyd told the truth or how many money he makes of it. I care about how it will/has affected the state of cycling. For that I thank Floyd.
yespatterns said:
You post that as if elite cycling was a sport with some integrity and Floyd somehow ruined it.
It didn't happen like that. The sport in the U.S. is a joke too and nothing has changed.
Floyd got the very worst of it from a thoroughly corrupt federation and he's supposed to be okay with being labeled the lone doper? No way.
DirtyWorks said:
Floyd isn't a lone doper.
But, given the profit he stands to make, and the extreme lengths he went to, it is a stretch to suggest that he got what he deserved.
Dave.
Netserk said:
All he got was a ban.
Everything else - including spending all that money on a fool's errand - he brought on himself. Of course, he brought the doping on himself as well. He wasn't doped against his will.
JB/Lance may not have hired him for Radio Shack, but he had already burned that bridge - in part, almost certainly, because of the incredibly bizarre campaign which could not, would not encourage any rational sponsor to back you.
And, you have to ask what he was thinking to go after them anyways?
Why would he want to be with RS? So he could dope some more?
Dave.
thehog
BANNED
thehog said:Profit? What's this profit business?
Sorry. Money.
-> Given the money that Floyd is likely to make from the Qui Tam ...
Dave.
D-Queued said:
devils advocate here. Was not the mail, well, it was the mail I had, that Floyd was getting the advice from the Armstrong entourage and they raised the bulk of the money for Floyd and the FFC, floyd football club or fairness campaign, from rich SoCal biznessman and Wall Street mid age crisiseseses(sic).
So Armstrong Stapleton and Knaggs definitely had skin in that game.
A little like US FoPo (foreign policy) a schroeginers folicy policy, at once, they look for security in the ME, central/eastern europe, and south america, at once, the CIA fomenting coups and death squads abroad.
So Knaggs and Stapleton wanted Armstrong as the clean latest winner, but they wanted cycling as a clean sport.
they wanted Floyd to be found guility, but to be found innocent too. As long as someone else like Doug Ellis was stupid enough to pay.
That is why, imo, in the distorted ethics of cycling, Floyd was actually owed a spot on Radioshack by Armstrong.
You can see how the Radioshack marketing team handled doping in cycling, and cycling and doping, and doping, and cycling, after Armstrong. They did not do much did they. So they could have handled Landis on their squad.
and yes, I am being quite moral relativist on all this, not my usual position
blackcat said:
Love all the references to Schroedinger and his equation.
Good post.
Is it possible that Armstrong et al could also be ok with having it both ways? Moreover, that Floyd should have known that implicitly, possibly even explicitly?
It would be consistent for Armstrong et al to want to undermine Richard Pound, WADA, and any real anti-doping efforts.
At the same time, they may have been quite entertained while Floyd went berserk. Even if it was just entertainment.
However, when the dust settled, they didn't want any of that sh*t on them.
What if people thought you had something to do with the Wacki-defence strategy?
Floyd had to know that in soliciting money he wasn't going to be able to shift or assign any blame.
Moreover, how Floyd chose to spend that money was all Floyd. And Arnie. And Will.
So, maybe they supported him with some cash. But, Floyd pulled a Floyd. He has to own it. But, he didn't want to. Much to our cheers.
Whether it was morality that turned him, anger, or envy, Floyd then decided to bring the house down. Now things are getting real interesting.
Even long immune Zorzoli (this thread) may be collateral damage.
Dave.
Thought I'd put this here as well.
From the Giro 1999: cosiness between Fuentes and Zorzoli, both setting up a meeting to bury Ochoa's 51 hematocrit plus three other suspect testing values among Kelme riders.
So Zorzoli knew from 1999 onwards that Fuentes was blooddoping his riders, but didn't do *** about it.
In 2006/7 Spanish police find Zorzoli's business card in Fuentes' pocket.
Healthy long term relationship.
From the Giro 1999: cosiness between Fuentes and Zorzoli, both setting up a meeting to bury Ochoa's 51 hematocrit plus three other suspect testing values among Kelme riders.
link: http://archivo.marca.com/ciclismo/giro99/hematocrito.html
So Zorzoli knew from 1999 onwards that Fuentes was blooddoping his riders, but didn't do *** about it.
In 2006/7 Spanish police find Zorzoli's business card in Fuentes' pocket.
Healthy long term relationship.
Re:
Thanks for resurrecting this thread Sniper.
On the business card, though, that remains pretty thin.
2006/7 wasn't that long ago, but maybe Fuentes has never heard of cell phones or contact databases.
If his number wasn't memorized, why wouldn't he have him on speed dial, and why would he even need a business card? As noted in another thread, we need wiretap or phone record evidence. Email or Fax (we know that Fuentes knew what a fax machine was) would be even better.
Anyhow, I sure hope nobody, anywhere gets convicted of anything because they had someone's business card.
My Spanish is, unfortunately, not that good so I am struggling with the quote above.
However, a couple of points:
1. Can Fuentes testify about any special relationship he may have had with Zorzoli?
2. Why didn't Fuentes speak to CIRC?
3. You have also alleged that Ferrari had some sort of special Zorzoli relationship, why didn't CIRC talk with him? Same for Leinders?
4. Even if Zorzoli knew about blood doping, what could he do until 2004 when there was finally a test for homologous doping?
We have to separate the facts that:
1. Cyclists dope. Therefore anyone at the UCI was close to dopers.
2. Team doctors facilitated doping. Therefore any UCI personnel that had any sort of relationship with any team doctor knew a doping doctor by default.
3. The UCI's leadership was fighting WADA tooth-and-nail to maintain the status quo. Anyone trying to do their job within the UCI would have been compromised.
It is this last point that is of greatest interest with Zorzoli. Did he:
- Go along with what his boss wanted?
- Go the extra mile to help deliver what his boss might have wanted?
- Actually do his job, even if only from time-to-time, in spite of what his boss wanted
We know that he did the latter, and went behind his boss and against his explicit wishes in at least two significant ways, which makes his case so interesting.
Hein protected Lance. Zorzoli helped expose him.
Hein produced the 50% HCT 'rule' legitimizing doping. Zorzoli fought this.
That takes some cajones.
Dave.
sniper said:
Thanks for resurrecting this thread Sniper.
On the business card, though, that remains pretty thin.
2006/7 wasn't that long ago, but maybe Fuentes has never heard of cell phones or contact databases.
If his number wasn't memorized, why wouldn't he have him on speed dial, and why would he even need a business card? As noted in another thread, we need wiretap or phone record evidence. Email or Fax (we know that Fuentes knew what a fax machine was) would be even better.
Anyhow, I sure hope nobody, anywhere gets convicted of anything because they had someone's business card.
My Spanish is, unfortunately, not that good so I am struggling with the quote above.
However, a couple of points:
1. Can Fuentes testify about any special relationship he may have had with Zorzoli?
2. Why didn't Fuentes speak to CIRC?
3. You have also alleged that Ferrari had some sort of special Zorzoli relationship, why didn't CIRC talk with him? Same for Leinders?
4. Even if Zorzoli knew about blood doping, what could he do until 2004 when there was finally a test for homologous doping?
We have to separate the facts that:
1. Cyclists dope. Therefore anyone at the UCI was close to dopers.
2. Team doctors facilitated doping. Therefore any UCI personnel that had any sort of relationship with any team doctor knew a doping doctor by default.
3. The UCI's leadership was fighting WADA tooth-and-nail to maintain the status quo. Anyone trying to do their job within the UCI would have been compromised.
It is this last point that is of greatest interest with Zorzoli. Did he:
- Go along with what his boss wanted?
- Go the extra mile to help deliver what his boss might have wanted?
- Actually do his job, even if only from time-to-time, in spite of what his boss wanted
We know that he did the latter, and went behind his boss and against his explicit wishes in at least two significant ways, which makes his case so interesting.
Hein protected Lance. Zorzoli helped expose him.
Hein produced the 50% HCT 'rule' legitimizing doping. Zorzoli fought this.
That takes some cajones.
Dave.
A further mitigating issue with Zorzoli is that anyone who served a ban for doping would be motivated to try and hang something on the UCI. At least everyone except Lance, which says a lot. No matter how contrite their ultimate apology might have been, there would always be that underlying motivation. To his credit, Lance does blame everyone else, universally.
In a sport so tainted and with such strong Omerta, this perception or wishful thinking is unavoidable.
Their own cognitive dissonance forces them to try and hang their guilt on someone else.
If any of these dopers thought their doping was in anyway ignored purposefully, condoned or partly blessed by someone at the UCI, even if they were completely deluded, then we would have to expect some finger pointing.
No doubt Hein and Pat actually do deserve serious retribution for their part in facilitating doping. But, how many independent agents within the UCI were taking their direction further?
We just don't know, but we sure would love to.
Dave.
In a sport so tainted and with such strong Omerta, this perception or wishful thinking is unavoidable.
Their own cognitive dissonance forces them to try and hang their guilt on someone else.
If any of these dopers thought their doping was in anyway ignored purposefully, condoned or partly blessed by someone at the UCI, even if they were completely deluded, then we would have to expect some finger pointing.
No doubt Hein and Pat actually do deserve serious retribution for their part in facilitating doping. But, how many independent agents within the UCI were taking their direction further?
We just don't know, but we sure would love to.
Dave.
Re:
lots have served a ban and said nothing
millar served a ban and blamed loads but UCI.
Dont see how anyone can defend Zrozoli. He sure was not anti doping.
As for UCI facilitating doping, of course they did. Heck they were always the last to introduce IOC banned substances to their list and always after July so not to upset riders. Delgado was caught with an IOC banned substance in his urine that was going to be on the UCI list in september and so he went on to win the Tour.
UCI were and still are a joke.
D-Queued said:
lots have served a ban and said nothing
millar served a ban and blamed loads but UCI.
Dont see how anyone can defend Zrozoli. He sure was not anti doping.
As for UCI facilitating doping, of course they did. Heck they were always the last to introduce IOC banned substances to their list and always after July so not to upset riders. Delgado was caught with an IOC banned substance in his urine that was going to be on the UCI list in september and so he went on to win the Tour.
UCI were and still are a joke.
Re: Re:
for now, let me keep it short:
Cookson said he wanted to change things.
If he meant a single word of that, he would never, ever, have kept Zorzoli.
Regardless of Rasmussen's accusations and the exact nature of Zorzoli's ties with Fuentes, fact is that Zorzoli was at the head of UCI anti doping from the late nineties up to present. A lot of corruption and doping facilitation has happened in that period, directly under Zorzoli's watch. He takes responsibility for that one way or the other.
you make some very good points. i might reply in more detail later.D-Queued said:
for now, let me keep it short:
Cookson said he wanted to change things.
If he meant a single word of that, he would never, ever, have kept Zorzoli.
Regardless of Rasmussen's accusations and the exact nature of Zorzoli's ties with Fuentes, fact is that Zorzoli was at the head of UCI anti doping from the late nineties up to present. A lot of corruption and doping facilitation has happened in that period, directly under Zorzoli's watch. He takes responsibility for that one way or the other.
Re: Re:
Point taken on staying short.
It would have made sense for Cookson to let some people go. If only to serve as window dressing for change.
Zorzoli is suspended, yes, but still there.
One way or another, Zorzoli is a fascinating case.
Suspended for doing the right thing with Lance.
Suspended for implications vis-a-vis Rabo.
Too bad Rabo didn't kick USPS' butts. If Zorzoli was helping, they needed more help.
Crazy, nonetheless.
The one guy that you would think could shed light on everything is Zorzoli. Can he? Will he? Why hasn't he? Are we asking for too much? Or, is there nothing there?
Dave.
sniper said:
Point taken on staying short.
It would have made sense for Cookson to let some people go. If only to serve as window dressing for change.
Zorzoli is suspended, yes, but still there.
One way or another, Zorzoli is a fascinating case.
Suspended for doing the right thing with Lance.
Suspended for implications vis-a-vis Rabo.
Too bad Rabo didn't kick USPS' butts. If Zorzoli was helping, they needed more help.
Crazy, nonetheless.
The one guy that you would think could shed light on everything is Zorzoli. Can he? Will he? Why hasn't he? Are we asking for too much? Or, is there nothing there?
Dave.
Hi Sniper,
I am going to move at least one of the bits from the Cookson thread over to here.
CIRC's most important task was to explore the UCI itself and if/how it had been compromised or had compromised cycling by facilitating doping.
Thus, if someone like Millar had real dirt on any UCI employee, like Zorzoli, then CIRC was the perfect opportunity to shed light on the subject.
Yet, as we know, Millar had the most feeble of excuses for not participating. Moreover, the instant the Report came out, Millar greeted its release with a pre-meditated response and discrediting campaign.
Couldn't he have done even more to discredit the UCI itself by exposing Zorzoli if he had anything of real substance?
As Millar is clearly pursuing a not-so-hidden agenda, then it makes sense that we should take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Like the running joke that is the title of the thread on Millar, he could have been a hero, Instead, he continues to act like a recidivist doper promoting innuendo and hiding in the shadows when given the opportunity to shed light.
Dave.
I am going to move at least one of the bits from the Cookson thread over to here.
sniper said:
CIRC's most important task was to explore the UCI itself and if/how it had been compromised or had compromised cycling by facilitating doping.
Thus, if someone like Millar had real dirt on any UCI employee, like Zorzoli, then CIRC was the perfect opportunity to shed light on the subject.
Yet, as we know, Millar had the most feeble of excuses for not participating. Moreover, the instant the Report came out, Millar greeted its release with a pre-meditated response and discrediting campaign.
Couldn't he have done even more to discredit the UCI itself by exposing Zorzoli if he had anything of real substance?
As Millar is clearly pursuing a not-so-hidden agenda, then it makes sense that we should take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Like the running joke that is the title of the thread on Millar, he could have been a hero, Instead, he continues to act like a recidivist doper promoting innuendo and hiding in the shadows when given the opportunity to shed light.
Dave.
Moving another bit from the Cookson thread over here to the Zorzoli thread
The 50% HCT rule was a shell game instigated by Hein to hide the real dopers.
Did Zorzoli turn a blind eye to the abuses?
No.
From Sylvia Shenk:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk- ... up-cycling
Zorzoli didn't mention the concerted abuse in passing. Nor did he send around a memo. He didn't flag it as a possibility.
No, he gave reports! Plural. Reports that underscored the concerted and wide-spread strategy to nail one's HCT levels.
He was the one exposing this. And you want to blame him for it happening? That doesn't make any sense.
Who was in charge? Zorzoli? Hein? Pat?
It wasn't Zorzoli.
teh 50% HCT rule was Hein's brain fart. We know from history that the 50% rule didn't result in any bans of any significance. A short holiday if you went over 50%, maybe a conspiratory wink from Verbruggen, and that was that.
Zorzoli's fault?
Remotely possible. Yet this excerpt from one of the very few untarnished characters associated with the UCI appears to directly conflict with any such theories to pin the blame on Zorzoli given that he was trying to blow the whistle and get somebody to do something.
Thus, not probable.
Further to that, you may be suprised by a paper written about the 50% limit by non other than Ashenden:
Ashenden et al. BLOOD TESTING FOR PROFESSIONAL CYCLISTS: What's a fair hematocrit limit? 1997.
You want Zorzoli to be firmer in enforcing a f***ing health check? Seriously??
Put yourself in Zorzoli's place.
First, there is NOTHING that you can do.
Second, the best scientists are saying the rule is too strict.
Third, your boss isn't listening to you.
In that environment, why bother doing anything? Thus, the best question of all is why did Zorzoli even bother trying to expose the concerted abuse of the 50% HCT limit?
It is because he actually did try that suggests an open mind is warranted.
Dave.
sniper said:
The 50% HCT rule was a shell game instigated by Hein to hide the real dopers.
Did Zorzoli turn a blind eye to the abuses?
No.
From Sylvia Shenk:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk- ... up-cycling
Zorzoli didn't mention the concerted abuse in passing. Nor did he send around a memo. He didn't flag it as a possibility.
No, he gave reports! Plural. Reports that underscored the concerted and wide-spread strategy to nail one's HCT levels.
He was the one exposing this. And you want to blame him for it happening? That doesn't make any sense.
Who was in charge? Zorzoli? Hein? Pat?
It wasn't Zorzoli.
teh 50% HCT rule was Hein's brain fart. We know from history that the 50% rule didn't result in any bans of any significance. A short holiday if you went over 50%, maybe a conspiratory wink from Verbruggen, and that was that.
Zorzoli's fault?
Remotely possible. Yet this excerpt from one of the very few untarnished characters associated with the UCI appears to directly conflict with any such theories to pin the blame on Zorzoli given that he was trying to blow the whistle and get somebody to do something.
Thus, not probable.
Further to that, you may be suprised by a paper written about the 50% limit by non other than Ashenden:
Ashenden et al. BLOOD TESTING FOR PROFESSIONAL CYCLISTS: What's a fair hematocrit limit? 1997.
You want Zorzoli to be firmer in enforcing a f***ing health check? Seriously??
Put yourself in Zorzoli's place.
First, there is NOTHING that you can do.
Second, the best scientists are saying the rule is too strict.
Third, your boss isn't listening to you.
In that environment, why bother doing anything? Thus, the best question of all is why did Zorzoli even bother trying to expose the concerted abuse of the 50% HCT limit?
It is because he actually did try that suggests an open mind is warranted.
Dave.
Zorzolli is the one who leaked Lance's 1999 results to that journalist yeah? Did we ever get to the bottom of his motivation for that?
Is this guy just skimming cream the whole time?
Is this guy just skimming cream the whole time?
Re:
D-Queued's hesitance to slam Zorzoli seems to hinge on this.
questions:
- did he know he was passing on info about lance? Or was he just passing on anonymous info?
- i read somewhere that Lance himself was in on the leak, or had given permission (as they were under the assumption that Ressiot was going to write about Clean Lance). Is there any truth in that?
- if Zorzoli deliberately passed on info that he knew would damage Lance, why was he allowed back into the UCI by Hein/Pat?
good question.Dear Wiggo said:
D-Queued's hesitance to slam Zorzoli seems to hinge on this.
questions:
- did he know he was passing on info about lance? Or was he just passing on anonymous info?
- i read somewhere that Lance himself was in on the leak, or had given permission (as they were under the assumption that Ressiot was going to write about Clean Lance). Is there any truth in that?
- if Zorzoli deliberately passed on info that he knew would damage Lance, why was he allowed back into the UCI by Hein/Pat?
@D-Queued:
I don't know about Millar's motives other than that he's clearly trying to sell clean cycling, hence his criticisim of the Circ report.
But I really wouldn't know why he would spit in the soup by denouncing Zorzoli in front of Circ? I don't see any motivation for him to do that.
Be that as it may, there's no way he just made up that bit about Gianetti and Zorzoli. Why would he?
Plus, it fits everything we've heard from other sources about Zorzoli and his closeness to other DSs and team docs.
And even if all the evidence is just hearsay and unconfirmed rumors, I ask you:
even in the absence of certainty about Zorzoli's ethics, corruption and doping scandals still happened under his nose, so why didn't Cookson go the safe route and simply replace him? Cookson had no qualms replacing others who didn't seem to have done much wrong.
I don't know about Millar's motives other than that he's clearly trying to sell clean cycling, hence his criticisim of the Circ report.
But I really wouldn't know why he would spit in the soup by denouncing Zorzoli in front of Circ? I don't see any motivation for him to do that.
Be that as it may, there's no way he just made up that bit about Gianetti and Zorzoli. Why would he?
Plus, it fits everything we've heard from other sources about Zorzoli and his closeness to other DSs and team docs.
And even if all the evidence is just hearsay and unconfirmed rumors, I ask you:
even in the absence of certainty about Zorzoli's ethics, corruption and doping scandals still happened under his nose, so why didn't Cookson go the safe route and simply replace him? Cookson had no qualms replacing others who didn't seem to have done much wrong.
Re:
first, let me take a snippet from that Schenk quote:
furthermore, although you make a good effort showing Zorzoli was developing some anti-doping efforts, i'd say: well of course he was, it was his job...
And so are Martial Saugy, Froome's Monaco-based doctor, and some of the Russian anti-doping doctors who got caught red-handed by Seppelt's documentary. All people who, on the one hand, are publishing articles about how to strengthen anti-doping, go to antidoping conferences, etc., while on the other hand they share their knowledge with, or sell it to, the athletes. Classic examples of doctors playing both sides, and there many are other such examples, Damsgaard, Catlin. Sure, they've all done good antidoping work. But they've also facilitated doping and opened themselves up to corruption.
Why would Zorzoli be any different? All the evidence (and it's not a small amount) suggests he wasn't/isn't any different.
good post, but...D-Queued said:
first, let me take a snippet from that Schenk quote:
she's spot on, and that's the one thing you'll agree Zorzoli doesn't have.
furthermore, although you make a good effort showing Zorzoli was developing some anti-doping efforts, i'd say: well of course he was, it was his job...
And so are Martial Saugy, Froome's Monaco-based doctor, and some of the Russian anti-doping doctors who got caught red-handed by Seppelt's documentary. All people who, on the one hand, are publishing articles about how to strengthen anti-doping, go to antidoping conferences, etc., while on the other hand they share their knowledge with, or sell it to, the athletes. Classic examples of doctors playing both sides, and there many are other such examples, Damsgaard, Catlin. Sure, they've all done good antidoping work. But they've also facilitated doping and opened themselves up to corruption.
Why would Zorzoli be any different? All the evidence (and it's not a small amount) suggests he wasn't/isn't any different.
Re:
that sounds reasonable to me. As i said earlier, if Mario was really out to damage Lance, i don't see how Verdruggem and Pat would've subsequently let him back in.
And Zorzoli was there when Lance's BP values were shoved under the carpet in 2008/9/10.
according to one source:Dear Wiggo said:
http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/05/
that sounds reasonable to me. As i said earlier, if Mario was really out to damage Lance, i don't see how Verdruggem and Pat would've subsequently let him back in.
And Zorzoli was there when Lance's BP values were shoved under the carpet in 2008/9/10.
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
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
How likely is Tadej Pogačar to win both the Giro and the Tour this season?- Latest: DoYouEvenRideBruh
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram