sniper said:
...
I don't think he's trolling at all, I think he's made some very good points (and so have you, btw) wrt Zorzoli.
I'll readily admit that if you'd remove Zorzoli, chances are you'd get somebody equally (or more) corrupt in return.
I was less charmed however by Dave's suggestion that both Millar, Rasmussen and Landis may have had ulterior motives to *** about Zorzoli.
But let's forget about the Dark Era.
To me, a compelling picture is emerging where UCI are protecting Zorzoli while Zorzoli is helping Sky in various ways (TUEs, no samples to Cologne, BP info, bilharzia..)
Thank goodness I am not a troll, or at least am not trolling.
I must admit, this is good exercise in argument construction. Though I would rather point out dumb things that bad guys do rather than try and defend anyone at the UCI for anything.
And, to preface the following please note that I am conflicted in this ongoing dialog as I have long felt that LeMond's statement to the effect that 'it is all corrupt' was as about as accurate as any. In reviewing some of his statements on that account, however, it is notable that Greg was careful not to impugn absolutely everyone:
(25 October 2012). "Open Letter to Pat McQuaid from Greg LeMond" (Ref: NYVelocity.com)
"Pat in my opinion you and Hein are the corrupt part of the sport. I do not want to include everyone at the UCI because I believe that there are many, maybe most that work at the UCI that are dedicated to cycling, they do it out of the love of the sport, but you and your buddy Hein have destroyed the sport. "
Just as LeMond suggested, we do have the question of just how deep any 'corruption' might go. Where, in this case, we shall define corruption as 'rot' as opposed to something exclusively involving bribery or monetary gain to remain consistent with everyone else here. So maybe they aren't all on the take, but who is rotten?
That said, let's move on to discuss Millar, Rasmussen and Landis.
1. Actual evidence or tidbits of potentially exaggerated claims made by others?
All statements thus far from all of these people regarding Zorzoli have been no closer than second hand. In the case of Landis, as far as we are aware he had no direct conversation with anyone involved in the Froome TUE situation. Moreover, he wasn't around for Armstrong's TUE episode. With no direct insight on either, he is really no better than the posters here and probably not as insightful given that we probably follow these things much more closely.
Thus, minimally, anything that these folks had to say is hearsay or personal opinion. There are actually no defensible facts here. And, we aren't even at the 'he said, she said' level of fact finding. None of these individuals has claimed to have had any direct contact with Zorzoli to discuss doping. Moreover, the statements of others that they have cited are more along the lines of innuendo (e.g. we have butter on our heads) as opposed to specifics on favoritism, guidance, shielding policy, etc.
What we really need is to hear from Leinders or someone who had a direct conversation(s) with Zorzoli about any of the activities of concern.
Rather than hear what Ferrari might be laughing about, it would be much more helpful to learn what leverage he might have had within the UCI. In fact, given that Ferrari is at the top of the pyramid it is notable that nobody has ever claimed that he, himself, had any sort of special relationships or favored status.
2. Agendas
Like most of the rest of us, each of these individuals is almost certainly prone to cognitive dissonance. That being where one has to reconcile something they did that was wrong with the fact that if they did it, then how could they be wrong?
Cognitive dissonance helps make all of these various admissions very compelling.
It is much easier to say, "I was bad, but..." than it is to simply state "I was bad" with no buts. These folks are all, or were, fierce competitors. They are compelled to come out ahead, even where they are stuck in actual or feigned remorse.
It is fascinating to follow.
But, since they all either still blame others or point to the actions of others as at least partial justification for their own actions, it is hard to dismiss their anecdotal comments as being without some agenda, even if that agenda is subconscious.
3. Froome TUE versus Armstrong TUE
Landis has claimed that these incidences were the same, "...Writing a fast-tracked TUE for a Tour winner last year sounds suspiciously like what happened in 1999 as well."
But, while a TUE was involved for corticosteroids in both cases, there are significant differences between the two. (I wish there weren't, but there are)
And, you don’t have to look very hard to see striking differences.
Substance declared:
Froome: Something he was taking
Armstrong: Something they made up after sending Emma on a treasure hunt/wild goose chase to find any kind of topical corticosteroid she could find.
Timing:
Froome: BEFORE a competition
Lance: AFTER a positive test
‘nuff said, no?
Please note that I would be very happy if they both got an AAF for the TUE. I would be very happy if even one of them did, and don’t really care which one.
But, to suggest that these are the same is stretching the truth.
4. Floyd’s agenda
Or, better, Floyd’s mouth.
In the same interview where Floyd opined about Zorzoli, he also offered this: “(Pro cycling) is now financed primarily by bored wealthy men who need a reason to give their wives about why they spend so much time with young leg-shaving men in tight pants.”
In other words, he graced us with a homophobic riff on cycling’s supporters.
Like many lies, there may be a grain of truth in that statement. Pro cyclists do shave their legs, after all. Maybe Floyd always felt a bit queer about doing that, especially as he started in MTB. However, to believe that Floyd has provided us with an accurate assessment about pro cycling is as asinine as the comment itself.
Floyd may or may not have an overt agenda, and may not be trying to bring everyone down with him, but he wouldn’t have to try much harder to be typecast as a bitter guy with an axe to grind.
If cycling is in dire need of support, then why bottom feed and spew crap like that?
Dave.
), but later on in the day.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram