Fuglsang and Lutsenko under investigation for cooperation with Michele Ferrari.

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
There is nothing to say. The secret investigation report use the word indicate but nothing published by media has explained why. They are supposed to have the actual report where the one thing explained in detail, the scooter story, is too stupid to believe. The stories about meetings are super random.

Also there is no description of method. It is not mentioned how they got hold of the paper which is important. And you need context to who these twelve people are and why their claims are important; they stay anonymous but should have title/work function/something. It's poor reporting. The whole team might work with Ferrari but what has come out to back a claim like that does not carry much weight.
 
At the end of 2018 - shortly before the big successes of spring 2019 - Fuglsang said goodbye to Rune Larsen who he had worked with for a long time. Now Rune Larsen says:
- In all the years I have worked with Jakob, it's been with the mindset of reaching as far as we could by legal means - even if that meant that there were goals we couldn't achieve.
And:
- As my collaboration with Astana stopped (...) I had described my ideas about a scientifically based training, diet and so on, but the team chose another direction of which I don't know the details.
(Quote from dr.dk)
 
Last edited:
There is nothing to say. The secret investigation report use the word indicate but nothing published by media has explained why. They are supposed to have the actual report where the one thing explained in detail, the scooter story, is too stupid to believe. The stories about meetings are super random.

Also there is no description of method. It is not mentioned how they got hold of the paper which is important. And you need context to who these twelve people are and why their claims are important; they stay anonymous but should have title/work function/something. It's poor reporting. The whole team might work with Ferrari but what has come out to back a claim like that does not carry much weight.
That's like saying that the media should always reveal their sources and reports from whistleblowers should never be trusted.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
They are supposed to have the actual report where the one thing explained in detail, the scooter story, is too stupid to believe.
That'd be as stupid, say, as LA piloting, oh, I don't know, TVG.
Also there is no description of method.
Prohibited association does not require method.
And you need context to who these twelve people are and why their claims are important; they stay anonymous but should have title/work function/something.
You do not identify whistle blowers.
 
Gut feeling is there is probably something behind this and we will learn more about it soon. The, he was seen with Ferrari motorpacing him, is complete nonsense though...at least I hope so. I refuse to believe people could be that f*cking stupid
 
Last edited:
Typical, a couple of dopers exposed, followed by a litany of denials.
The thing is that there is no exposition. The "exposers" refuse to explain the reasons for the suspicions. And conclude in the report that a link between Fuglsang (and Lutsenko) and Ferrari could not be proven.

"BUT WE'LL JUST LET THE PUBLIC OPINION TAKE HIM DOWN WHEN WE CAN'T FIND PROOF!!"
 
"BUT WE'LL JUST LET THE PUBLIC OPINION TAKE HIM DOWN WHEN WE CAN'T FIND PROOF!!"
McQuaid sacrificed all the names on his ill-named "index of suspicion". Thinking this is about exposing doping is wrong. This is politics. The riders - innocent or guilty - are collateral damage, nothing more. The CADF gets to look like it functions. Few here though can recall the last time they caught a WT rider doping in the WT.
 
Big diffetence between, rider who used to dope, and an actual doping doctor. Like, most riders in the current peloton have guys in their team of trainers who were anything but clean when they were active. That's because they are still mostly associated with their performances and not doping. Meanwhile literally the only reason why to get in contact with Ferrari is to dope
 
Reactions: Koronin
Oct 7, 2019
79
25
730
Of course, they're dopers. Aren't they all. Every single last one of them, perhaps a small few aren't. Dopers, dopers, dopers. End of story. Professional cycling is as dirty now, as it ever was. To think otherwise is pure ignorance, and denialism. Proof is not necessary, empirical evidence will prevail. This is cycling, not a walk in the park. Ah, it's unbelievable to think, that once upon a time, and even now people thought that you could build muscle like Arnold, by pumping a few barbells and you will look like Steve Reeves. The same is true for cycling, the Tour de France, etc, etc; it can't be done without performance-enhancing-drugs. That is a fact, deal with it. Human physiology was not designed to cope with the extraordinary demands of this brutal sport. Drugs are everywhere, in all sports. That's the way it always was, and unfortunately that's the way it will always be. Now ban these two losers and put Ferrari behind bars, where he belongs.
 
Reactions: markene2
That's like saying that the media should always reveal their sources and reports from whistleblowers should never be trusted.
You do not identify whistle blowers.
Yeah my comments were about the media methods used here. Of course I don't want sources named but they need to be identified by position/work/something in order to understand why what they said to the investigators was important.

From the stories I have read this is about some guys who said they heard some story from some guy that some other guys had seen something unusual. To be a real whistleblower you need to know something and have documents and stuff.

Prohibited association does not require method.
Method used about the media approach. For serious work like this you need to describe methods used like how did they get hold of this paper and as mentioned at least outline the people they talked to anonymously for added transparency and credibility. The documentation presented is super weak.

That'd be as stupid, say, as LA piloting, oh, I don't know, TVG.
No it would be way stupider imo.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D The Clinic 94

ASK THE COMMUNITY