• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Ezequiel Mosquera

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Polish,

in defence of Mosquera: There are no 6 postive Epo-Tests, no skeptical Blood-profiles on the internet, no affidavits against him, etc. etc...

Indeed, Mosquera´s doping is pur speculation. But he is highly suspicious.

Hey...this Vuelta was tame compared to previous years. It has always been a very "active" race. Always amazing how much attacking they do above 7,000' elevation.
 
Hugh Januss said:
Probably my fault for bringing up King. I was just trying to make the observation that our "lunatic fringe" was strangely silent as long as we were not parsing out the guilt or innocence of Armstrong or anyone connected with him, thus there was a relatively intelligent exchange of ideas on the subject. Of course as soon as I mentioned Armstrong or Livestrong in they flooded as if eager to prove my point.

Based on his signing announcement today he is doped to the gills if you buy the ridiculous notion that if you know a doper you dope. To set the record straight I have never once defended LA, I was defending a 21yo kid from a real good family who's only suspect because he rides for TLS.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
To have the best results of a GT at age of 35/33 is absolutley normal. And finishing ITT´s around 90th place and all of a sudden being in the Top-15 at the vueltas is pretty normal.

It's not like this hasn't been done before..


I'm not disputing that he doped. Everyone at the top of a GT is doping. He's not going to be on more than Schleck or Rodriguez, Nibali, Velits etc.
Just probably got better stuff when he moved from Portugal.
 
luckyboy said:
It's not like this hasn't been done before..


I'm not disputing that he doped. Everyone at the top of a GT is doping. He's not going to be on more than Schleck or Rodriguez, Nibali, Velits etc.
Just probably got better stuff when he moved from Portugal.

This is exactly what i think. They all dope. Mosquera does too.

And I still dont see how someone whos greatest achievment is 1 gt podium and a stage win, who has always been a great climber, is more suspicious than so many others who have won numerous stages, classics, itts, world championships. What about the guy who Mosquera couldnt beat?. The experts:p said he couldnt climb. And yet he magically finds super climbing form on the steepest mountain. What about the guy who climbed with the best and crushed Cancellara in the tt?

And please offer a better expectation than the " 25 year olds dont dope" drivel that was offered earlier.
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
[...]And please offer a better expectation than the " 25 year olds dont dope" drivel that was offered earlier.

That is called "talent".

This is cycling McCarthyism. These people will not be contempt until they turn the TdF, the Vuelta and the Giro into a bicycle lane at a Dutch town.

They're worst than the team sportifs that pressure these young kids to dope from day 1.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
And please offer a better expectation than the " 25 year olds dont dope" drivel that was offered earlier.

Well i never said he (Nibali) don´t dope. I think it makes sense what Alpe and the guys from sportsscience say: They might still dope, but not as heavy as 2+ years ago. May i am naive, but it seems the passport has made an impact...

Mosquera in spain, coming out of nowhere at a high age... Sorry, but things like that didn´t happen before the EPO/"Extra-Blood"-Age. All those old winners came up in this Era (Armstrong, Vino, Rasmussen, Sastre). So Mosquera and Garcia Dapena might be some "old-school"-heavy dopers in the dopers heaven country...
 
luckyboy said:
It's not like this hasn't been done before..


I'm not disputing that he doped. Everyone at the top of a GT is doping. He's not going to be on more than Schleck or Rodriguez, Nibali, Velits etc.
Just probably got better stuff when he moved from Portugal.

I doubt it. The Portuguese scene has shown that it's just as happy to fill itself with dope as it's ever been - after last year's Volta a Portugal we have at least four positives (Ribeiro, Nozal, Guerra and Jiménez), and we have the LA-MSS saga from 2008 too, plus almost all the biggest names over there are ex-Puerto or similar people - Bernabéu, Blanco, Zaballa, Santí Pérez...

Mosquera's improvement in results upon leaving Portugal is likely more to do with:
1) far more race invites - though Portuguese teams got more invites in those days, he was on relatively small teams like Rota dos Móveis and Boavista.
2) a bit more free reign to ride for himself.
3) as a pure climber, there are more races in Spain that go up mountains than in Portugal. And these races tend to be tougher and the mountains steeper and harder, thus better suited to Mosquera's strengths since most of his best results in Portugal came from mountain stages.
4) the races he was able to enter may have not been any tougher but paid more CQ points (note how the 2.2 Vuelta a Colombia pays far fewer points than the PT TDU even in CQ, but nobody would argue that the TDU is harder, except maybe ACF).

Also, the main reasons for him being in Portugal are likely to be:
1) Portugal is more local to Mosquera than most of the Spanish teams, based in the east of the country
2) Portuguese cycling has traditionally paid higher salaries and race prize money than the Spanish national calendar
3) Until relatively recently, when the Spanish scene has had a bit of a rejuvenation, there were few feasible options between the top tier teams and the lower levels in Spain.

Basically, for a Spanish rider in Portugal, there are two main reasons to be there. Either you're blacklisted or limited in where you can go because of Puerto, or you're looking to make a name for yourself - and good showings in a 2-week race like the Volta shows talent and recovery (and if Mosquera has naturally good recovery it may explain why he flourishes in the longer races).

Here's a number of Spanish riders in the péloton who got their starts in Portugal:

David Bernabéu (Boavista 1999-2002, Milaneza-MSS 2003-4, Barbot 2008-10)
David Blanco (Rota dos Móveis 2000-1, ASC Vila do Conde 2002, Ravessa (PRT) 2003, Palmeiras Resort 2007-10)
*Gustavo César (Boavista 2001-3)
*Gustavo Domínguez (Boavista 2002-3)
*Pedro Fernández (Beppi 2002-4, ASC 2005, Loulé 2006-8)
*David Garçia (LA-Pecol 1999, Boavista 2000-3, LA-Pecol 2004, LA-Liberty Seguros 2005-6
José Antonio Garrido (Benfica 1999-2000, LA-MSS 2007-8)
Mikel Gaztañaga (Matesica 2002)
§ Joan Horrach (Milaneza-MSS 2000-3)
§ Josep Jufré (Boavista 1999-2002)
Alejandro Marque (Boavista 2004-5, Loulé 2006-7, Palmeiras Resort 2008-10)
*Ezequiel Mosquera (Rota dos Móveis 1999-2002, Cantanhedes 2003, Boavista 2004)
Carlos Nozal (LA-Liberty Seguros 2005-6, Liberty Seguros 2007-9)
Juan Olmo (Barbot 2002-4, Duja 2005)
Didac Ortega (Benfica 2007, Barbot 2008)
*Francisco Pacheco (Barbot 2007-8)
Adrián Palomares (Boavista 2000-4)
§ Óscar Pereiro (Porta da Ravessa 2000-1)
Francisco Pérez (Gresco 2001, Porta da Ravessa 2002, Milaneza-MSS 2003-5)
Santiago Pérez (Barbot 2001, Loulé 2008, Boavista 2009, Loulé 2010)
§ Vicente Reynes (LA-Pecol 2003)
* Gustavo Rodríguez (Barbot 2005-6, Rota dos Móveis 2007-8)
§ Xavier Tondó (Barbot 2004, LA-MSS 2007-8)
* Ramón Troncoso (Loulé 2004-6)

* denotes a rider who has been at Xacobeo.
§ denotes a ProTour, Cervélo or BMC rider in year 2010.

There are also others who have spent a year or two in Portugal when things haven't gone according to plan (eg Tondó's return in 2007-8 after injuries blighted his first stab at the big time), though the reasons may vary - David Arroyo at LA-Pecol in 2004 is comparatively innocent, while on the other side of things Ángel Vicioso at LA-MSS in 2008 and Rubén Plaza at Benfica in 2008 and Liberty Seguros in 2009 spring to mind.
 
JRTinMA said:
Based on his signing announcement today he is doped to the gills if you buy the ridiculous notion that if you know a doper you dope. To set the record straight I have never once defended LA, I was defending a 21yo kid from a real good family who's only suspect because he rides for TLS.

For the record I did not include you in the "usual pack of idiots" characterization.
Second, I have no doubt Mosquera is enhanced, whether he "knows" dopers or not, he beat dopers and science tells us that is next to impossible.
Thirdly what difference does coming from a "real good family" have to do with anything? Floyd came from a pretty upright family and that didn't stop him from doing what he had to do to be competitive.
They all do it. And the successful ones truely believe, I think, that it is "not really cheating if everyone is doing it".
 
Mosquera suspicious?

Nah don't think so.
He rode for Portuguese teams all his life and never seemed to perform well in the uber-doped Portuguese circuit. (Just look at the positive from Volta a Portugal recent years).
Then he went back to Spain, still no big results, until the big clean up started after Puerto.
And look, THEN Mosquera started to perform with his top 5 places in the Vuelta in recent years.
THis year the start field was really thin of quality, and when Menchov sucked, F.Schleck proved again he is no top GC rider and when Anton fell, the road was open to the podium.

Nah. Mosquera is far from suspicious to me. He's one of the most likely top riders to ride clean, he only became a good rider when the fields became cleaner, and the fact that he couldn't do squat in EPO-ridden Portugal in the height of the EPO days says enough.
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Mosquera suspicious?

Nah don't think so.
He rode for Portuguese teams all his life and never seemed to perform well in the uber-doped Portuguese circuit. (Just look at the positive from Volta a Portugal recent years).
Then he went back to Spain, still no big results, until the big clean up started after Puerto.
And look, THEN Mosquera started to perform with his top 5 places in the Vuelta in recent years.
THis year the start field was really thin of quality, and when Menchov sucked, F.Schleck proved again he is no top GC rider and when Anton fell, the road was open to the podium.

Nah. Mosquera is far from suspicious to me. He's one of the most likely top riders to ride clean, he only became a good rider when the fields became cleaner, and the fact that he couldn't do squat in EPO-ridden Portugal in the height of the EPO days says enough.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume that there has been a redution in doping to the extent that the peloton has slowed enough to allow clean riders to rise naturally to the top.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Mosquera suspicious?

Nah. Mosquera is far from suspicious to me. He's one of the most likely top riders to ride clean, he only became a good rider when the fields became cleaner, and the fact that he couldn't do squat in EPO-ridden Portugal in the height of the EPO days says enough.

The "fields became cleaner" hypothesis seems a bit weak, but even if true - it would become EASIER for a Doper to win.

Easier pickins' for the remaining dopers.

Greater chance of payoff for the remaining dopers.

Riders like ricco or kohl would be foaming at the mouth.
Wolves in sheeps clothing.

C'mon, what makes Lance's one two three four five six seven wins in a row sooo awesome is that he was beating strong dopers.

If he was defeating clean GT Dangermen, much less impressive.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Well i never said he (Nibali) don´t dope. I think it makes sense what Alpe and the guys from sportsscience say: They might still dope, but not as heavy as 2+ years ago. May i am naive, but it seems the passport has made an impact...

Mosquera in spain, coming out of nowhere at a high age... Sorry, but things like that didn´t happen before the EPO/"Extra-Blood"-Age. All those old winners came up in this Era (Armstrong, Vino, Rasmussen, Sastre). So Mosquera and Garcia Dapena might be some "old-school"-heavy dopers in the dopers heaven country...

Maybe the passport has made an impact, on EPO and blood transfusions. But when you read what Joe Papps says, he claims to have been taking lots of other crap and didnt know why. He said it made him feel younger and a better outlook. And if you think about it, going into a 50km time trial which is the better outlook - Oh crap i have 1 hour of total pain coming up , or the drug fuelled " i am indistructable" attitude. Its not just the epo. Maybe due to the blood passport they take less of that, but all the other stuff, i think is still there.

I do understand your point about older riders being suspicious, but there are other things that can make a rider suspicious - such as suddenly emerging out of the blue and crushing Cancellara in a time trial, or having strong links to the Greatest blood doctor of all time, and being co leader of a team led by 2 other dopers.

My argument is hence - Suspicousness of riders

1Nibali - Ferrari and Liquigas
2 Frank (transactions)
3 Velits (emerges from knowhere as super climber and super tter)
4 Mosquera - maintains form going into mid 30's.
 
Polish said:
The "fields became cleaner" hypothesis seems a bit weak, but even if true - it would become EASIER for a Doper to win.

Easier pickins' for the remaining dopers.

Greater chance of payoff for the remaining dopers.

Riders like ricco or kohl would be foaming at the mouth.
Wolves in sheeps clothing.

C'mon, what makes Lance's one two three four five six seven wins in a row sooo awesome is that he was beating strong dopers.

If he was defeating clean GT Dangermen, much less impressive.

I actually found myself agreeing with you to begin with, then you let your mancrush take you back off the deep end.:cool:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Mosquera suspicious?

Nah don't think so.
He rode for Portuguese teams all his life and never seemed to perform well in the uber-doped Portuguese circuit. (Just look at the positive from Volta a Portugal recent years).
Then he went back to Spain, still no big results, until the big clean up started after Puerto.
And look, THEN Mosquera started to perform with his top 5 places in the Vuelta in recent years.
THis year the start field was really thin of quality, and when Menchov sucked, F.Schleck proved again he is no top GC rider and when Anton fell, the road was open to the podium.

Nah. Mosquera is far from suspicious to me. He's one of the most likely top riders to ride clean, he only became a good rider when the fields became cleaner, and the fact that he couldn't do squat in EPO-ridden Portugal in the height of the EPO days says enough.

Good point. It goes the direction of what the guys from sportsscience say. Nowadays the climbers have a chance again. Gadret in the lead groups at the Giro and TdF, while the TT-Riders are dropped. Good signs. But then...

roundabout said:
Or he became a good rider when he hooked up with Pino.

... that says much too. Plus his age is suspicious. As i said old riders came out of nowhere with the beginning of the new age doping.

The Hitch said:
Maybe the passport has made an impact, on EPO and blood transfusions. But when you read what Joe Papps says, he claims to have been taking lots of other crap and didnt know why. He said it made him feel younger and a better outlook. And if you think about it, going into a 50km time trial which is the better outlook - Oh crap i have 1 hour of total pain coming up , or the drug fuelled " i am indistructable" attitude. Its not just the epo. Maybe due to the blood passport they take less of that, but all the other stuff, i think is still there.

I do understand your point about older riders being suspicious, but there are other things that can make a rider suspicious - such as suddenly emerging out of the blue and crushing Cancellara in a time trial, or having strong links to the Greatest blood doctor of all time, and being co leader of a team led by 2 other dopers.

My argument is hence - Suspicousness of riders

1Nibali - Ferrari and Liquigas
2 Frank (transactions)
3 Velits (emerges from knowhere as super climber and super tter)
4 Mosquera - maintains form going into mid 30's.

I here go with Voet, Winnen, Lemond, Järmann, and medical studies. That´s all stuff taken by sick riders who are addicted. That things have a psychological impact (placebo) but are not so much performance enhancing that you turn from a also ran into a contender... I accept your point with Nibali, Frank Schleck and Velits. I might be naive, but i believe in the young guns that they are cleaner than the former generation. BTW, what you think of Roche? I think he´s talented. Quote 1 is applicable. The genes from his Dad. Yes i know Dad was connected with the italian docs, but i also remember how he suffered under a oxygen machine in 1987 after a MTF; something i never saw with Armstrong.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
I doubt it. The Portuguese scene has shown that it's just as happy to fill itself with dope as it's ever been - after last year's Volta a Portugal we have at least four positives (Ribeiro, Nozal, Guerra and Jiménez), and we have the LA-MSS saga from 2008 too, plus almost all the biggest names over there are ex-Puerto or similar people - Bernabéu, Blanco, Zaballa, Santí Pérez...

I knew this, just thought that maybe would've been a step-up in doping from Conti to ProConti team.

Libertine Seguros said:
Mosquera's improvement in results upon leaving Portugal is likely more to do with:
1) far more race invites - though Portuguese teams got more invites in those days, he was on relatively small teams like Rota dos Móveis and Boavista.

Yeah, this is what I said.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
My argument is hence - Suspicousness of riders


3 Velits (emerges from knowhere as super climber and super tter)

I have just checked the ITT´s of him. Not suspicious at all. A gradual process of a young rider:

2010: 1st, 10th, 12th, 11th, 28th (short Proloque)
2009: 21st, 26th, 23rd, 27th, 67th (short Proloque), 69th (short Proloque)

It wasn´t just obscure races. The results come from the TdF, Tirr.-Adria., TdS, etc.

Source: CQ
 
Gradual progress -

2009 Tour de Suisse Bern ITT, 2'47" behind Cancellara
2009 Tour de France Annecy ITT, 2'10" behind Cancellara
2010 Vuelta Peñafiel ITT, 37" ahead of Cancellara. Also, suddenly climbing with Frank Schleck, Rodriguez etc.

Tirreno 2009 - 38th, +19'02"
Pais Vasco 2009 - 43rd, +16'49"
Suisse 2009 - 12th, +5'40"
TdF 2009 - 31st, +46'35"
Tirreno 2010 - 32nd, +5'27"
Pais Vasco 2010 - 19th, +6'54"
Pologne 2010 - 22nd, +3'04"
Vuelta 2010 - 3rd, +3'04"

Admittedly he closed the gap a bit in 2010, but this result is a massive anomaly.
 
A lot has to do with moral in this case.

Peter Velits didn't have much to fight for in the other time trials and is not a natural time triallist, in the sence, knowing it's a strong point, he probably knew not.
Ofcourse he pushed himself, everyone has to in a ITT, but not to the absolute limit.

This time, he knew a possible top 5 place in a GT was at stake, so he tried as hard as he could and suprised himself and the rest of the world. Call me naive but we have seen suprises like this before.

I mean, Richie Porte has come out of absolutely nowhere as well, even though he won the Giro Bio TT, he was still a nobody at pro level, nobody is questioning him. And why would we? It's suprises like these that make cycling an enjoyable sport.

Just look at the top 10 from grand tours through the years. Even Tour de France. Dopers or not, there are not so much regulars in the top 10 as you think. Most of the time it's just 3/4 guys returning in the same top 10, and added with 6/7 new names...
 
luckyboy said:
Gradual progress -

2009 Tour de Suisse Bern ITT, 2'47" behind Cancellara
2009 Tour de France Annecy ITT, 2'10" behind Cancellara
2010 Vuelta Peñafiel ITT, 37" ahead of Cancellara. Also, suddenly climbing with Frank Schleck, Rodriguez etc.

Tirreno 2009 - 38th, +19'02"
Pais Vasco 2009 - 43rd, +16'49"
Suisse 2009 - 12th, +5'40"
TdF 2009 - 31st, +46'35"
Tirreno 2010 - 32nd, +5'27"
Pais Vasco 2010 - 19th, +6'54"
Pologne 2010 - 22nd, +3'04"
Vuelta 2010 - 3rd, +3'04"

Admittedly he closed the gap a bit in 2010, but this result is a massive anomaly.

Look at this research.
And people mock me when i spend 5 minutes looking up stats regarding how many people wrote on the giro threads:rolleyes:

ps im not mocking you. I think thats some top quality research right there, and not for the first time.
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
A lot has to do with moral in this case.

Peter Velits didn't have much to fight for in the other time trials and is not a natural time triallist, in the sence, knowing it's a strong point, he probably knew not.
Ofcourse he pushed himself, everyone has to in a ITT, but not to the absolute limit.

This time, he knew a possible top 5 place in a GT was at stake, so he tried as hard as he could and suprised himself and the rest of the world. Call me naive but we have seen suprises like this before.

I mean, Richie Porte has come out of absolutely nowhere as well, even though he won the Giro Bio TT, he was still a nobody at pro level, nobody is questioning him. And why would we? It's suprises like these that make cycling an enjoyable sport.

Just look at the top 10 from grand tours through the years. Even Tour de France. Dopers or not, there are not so much regulars in the top 10 as you think. Most of the time it's just 3/4 guys returning in the same top 10, and added with 6/7 new names...

Remember though, the argument isnt neccesarily that Velits is doping but more - if you are going to suspect riders of doping Velits should be higher on the list than Eze.

And that he wasnt trying doesnt make up for the time deficits he had (as shown in luckyboys post) compared to him now. Remember effort needed increases exponentially as you go down in time. every single second gained requires more effort than the previous one. So for me the beating Cancellara was a big leap.
Does it mean he was doping? Of course not.
Does it mean he is more suspicious than Eze? In my opinion yes, but others might see otherwise.
 
Wow. Great comments and research. A takeaway is that, perhaps to trust, we need a large enough sample of control subjects with a guaranteed history of riding clean to compare to the general sample. Possible, unlikely. But far more accurate than the industry sponsored "passport."
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
if you are going to suspect riders of doping Velits should be higher on the list than Eze.

And that he wasnt trying doesnt make up for the time deficits he had (as shown in luckyboys post) compared to him now.
...

Does it mean he is more suspicious than Eze? In my opinion yes, but others might see otherwise.

I still can´t see PVelits TT-Win as suspicious.
He won at 52.43
3. Cancellara + 0.37
4. Larsson + 0.50
7. Zabriskie + 1.10
8. Barredo + 1.14
13. Sastre + 1.47

Vuelta Pasco:
1. Horner 32.33
10. Velits + 0.39
27. Zabriskie + 1.42

Criterium Intl.:
1. Millar 9.49
12. Velits + 0.17
16. Pinotti + 0.20

Algarve:
1. LL Sanchez 21.32
11. Velits + 0.53
18. Barredo + 1.07

Giro (w/o Velits):
1. Larsson 20.19
2. Pinotti 0.02
61. Sastre 1.26

What does it all mean?
1. Vuelta-ITT: As i have to trust cycnews at least a bit, they wrote in the live report that the wind changed for the late riders on the back-road. Not only did Velits make much time up on the last km´s, but also Menchov and Sastre (besides others).
Sastre looses 0.57 vs. Larsson, Zabriskie lost 1.10 vs. Velits, Barredo lost 1.14 vs. Velits

2. Vuelta Pasco: Zabriskie lost 1.03 vs. Velits on a much shorter TT than the Vuelta

3. Crit. Intl.: Velits beats Pinotti by 0.03 in a very short TT (that would translate to 0.16 at the Vuelta)

4. Algarve: Velits beats Barredo by 0.14; translate it to the Vuelta, Velits should have beaten Barredo by 0.33 (well he did beat him by 1.14 = not that much more)

5. Giro: We can see that Larsson and Pinotti are at the same level. Sastre looses 1.26 to Larsson. He lost by only 0.57 to him at the Vuelta, even tough that TT was longer.
Velits should have beaten Pinotti/Larsson by 0.16 at the Vuelta, actually he beat Larsson by 0.50 (= not that much more)

Conclusion:
Velits was a little bit faster than expected vs. Larsson at the Vuelta. He was just a little bit faster vs. Barredo than expected. Since Sastre gained time to Larsson at the Vuelta (compared to the Giro), we can expect that Larsson wasn´t at 100%. That explains the faster than expected time by Velits vs. Larsson at the Vuelta. Velits beats Zabriskie by much less time than expected at the Vuelta.

We can´t only take Cancellaras time as a benchmark for time comparisons. It also seems that the wind influenced the time of Cancellara at the Vuelta. Velits didn´t beat the others by much more than expected and even gained less time to Zabriskie than expected.

After all: Velits time looked surprising (maybe because everybody only looked at Cancellaras time, as i did, to be honest), but it is not.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Well i never said he (Nibali) don´t dope. I think it makes sense what Alpe and the guys from sportsscience say: They might still dope, but not as heavy as 2+ years ago. May i am naive, but it seems the passport has made an impact...

Mosquera in spain, coming out of nowhere at a high age... Sorry, but things like that didn´t happen before the EPO/"Extra-Blood"-Age. All those old winners came up in this Era (Armstrong, Vino, Rasmussen, Sastre). So Mosquera and Garcia Dapena might be some "old-school"-heavy dopers in the dopers heaven country...

You continue to rant about Mosquera "coming out of nowhere" inspite of the load of research posted to the contrary by Libertine Seguros. It appears you're set in your belief regardless of what facts are presented to you. Your mind was made up prior to creating this thread so what was the purpose of opening it in the first place if you're going to ignore all posts that would steer you in a different direction?