Fuglsang and Lutsenko under investigation for cooperation with Michele Ferrari.

[del1962]

Lutsenko and Fuglsang used exactly same words so ptobs from Asrana legal team

 

[yaco]

LA, sure. But Ferrari? He's like the undisputed Lord of how to master GC doping.

Of course it doesn't look good, but cyclists and other athletes have associations with banned figures for a variety of reasons - Instead of worrying about banning the athlete for alleged associations find EVIDENCE they are doping.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I don't see Fuglsang's 2009 Dauphiné emergence as being particularly suspect given where his background was, and it's not like he hadn't done any climbing performances before that year. He had been 16th in the Vuelta al País Vasco, and 6th in the last May Volta a Catalunya, albeit not in a great field. His 2009 is largely only really suspect because he was that competitive in a year which has been shown in retrospect to have been a real regression for anti-doping in the sport. He then large settled at or around that level, maintaining a fairly consistent performance level for several years, which means that 2009 doesn't really stand out massively like it's a Murilo Fischer 2005 or a Vladimir Karpets 2007. His sudden late career blossoming in 2018 and especially 2019, on the other hand... those do

Still, that was a big step up. I saw it live and commentators were surprised by Fuglsang's climbing level. I don't think he stopped doping in the years following 2009 (or at any point after that). Your point that he rose to prominence in a particularly dodgy peloton is an additional red flag for me.

His average performance level regressed in later years though. In an allegedly cleaner peloton.

He still had had the odd dodgy performance, though, like his Dauphiné wins. Edit: his first Dauphiné win.

And he was clearly on some very good form going in to the 2014 Tour. He wasn't the only rider on Astana's Tour squad that was on great form, IIRC...

Not sure what happened in 2018 and 2019... yeah, obviously 2019 was lol-worthy. We all knew what time it was when he suddenly could match Alaphilippe's accelartions. No argument there. Obviously his 2019 season stood out like nothing else in his career.

 

[brownbobby]

Of course it doesn't look good, but cyclists and other athletes have associations with banned figures for a variety of reasons - Instead of worrying about banning the athlete for alleged associations find EVIDENCE they are doping.

Totally agree with this when referring to people associating with Lance.... but can you suggest a reason, other than doping, why a cyclist might associate with Michele Ferrari

 

[spalco]

LA, sure. But Ferrari? He's like the undisputed Lord of how to master GC doping.

To be honest, if Fuglsang's recent results are a product of Ferrari's assistance, than I'm surprised Ferrrari is still so cutting edge apparently after having been a total pariah for a decade or more. I would have thought sports science and doping knowledge has moved on since then.

 

[brownbobby]

To be honest, if Fuglsang's recent results are a product of Ferrari's assistance, than I'm surprised Ferrrari is still so cutting edge apparently after having been a total pariah for a decade or more. I would have thought sports science and doping knowledge has moved on since then.

I think that if teams/riders are willing to risk association with Ferrari and all the baggage and toxicity that comes with him, then it would be surprising if they're doing so for the same old EPO/blood bag methods that they can get from any number of 'safer' sources these days.......if he was at the cutting edge of doping in the 90's then its not unlikely that he's stayed at the cutting edge to this day, even if he does have to operate from the shadows..

 

[Akuryo]

I think that if teams/riders are willing to risk association with Ferrari and all the baggage and toxicity that comes with him, then it would be surprising if they're doing so for the same old EPO/blood bag methods that they can get from any number of 'safer' sources these days.......if he was at the cutting edge of doping in the 90's then its not unlikely that he's stayed at the cutting edge to this day, even if he does have to operate from the shadows..

Exactly this. He would have to stay on top of his game to keep his clients right? Cause even in the shadows, the competition does not sleep. Or maybe even less...

 

[scapewalker]

To be honest, if Fuglsang's recent results are a product of Ferrari's assistance, than I'm surprised Ferrrari is still so cutting edge apparently after having been a total pariah for a decade or more. I would have thought sports science and doping knowledge has moved on since then.

Well listen to those who have been popped during operation Aderlass.
Dr. Schmidt has been active for the past decade and isn't using anything new at all if we can trust the sources. If anything is more generic and not tailored to a specific rider like it would be with Ferrari.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Of course it doesn't look good, but cyclists and other athletes have associations with banned figures for a variety of reasons - Instead of worrying about banning the athlete for alleged associations find EVIDENCE they are doping.

Come on. You can’t seriously be suggesting that there might be an innocent reason for a currently active pro to be working or training or regularly meeting with Michele Ferrari. If anyone is proven to be doing that, that’s as good as peeing hot.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Fuglsang’s media strategy remains insane. What does he think he’s doing limiting his denials to a weirdly worded statement identical to Lutsenko’s? Regardless of what he has or hasn’t done, that doesn’t help him. Ferrari of all people put out a better denial.

 

[ppanther92]

Some thoughts (referring or not referring to previous posts in this thread):

1. Fuglsang's reaction is indeed managed very bad. On the other hand, there there is nothing that can be done in such a situation that will not be interpreted negatively by people. If you got mud thrown at you, some of it will always stick. Anyway, he could of course at least try to "keep a bit cleaner".

2. There is no other reason other than doping to contact Ferrari from a rider's perspective. So if this gets proven, the case is clear. Period.

3. Ferrari probably kept his knowledge on top of the game and knows about "new ways" of doping. But I also think this is not that much of an arms race as we think it is. When we have learned anything from Erfurt, than it is that the 1 extra percent is still easily achieved by doing blood doping without having to fear about getting caught by tests. And that was with a standard program without much assistance. So, the old "Ferrari-magic" is probably still working exceptional well.

 

[spalco]

Fuglsang’s media strategy remains insane. What does he think he’s doing limiting his denials to a weirdly worded statement identical to Lutsenko’s? Regardless of what he has or hasn’t done, that doesn’t help him. Ferrari of all people put out a better denial.

I also immediately noticed, Fuglsang didn't say: "I have never met Mr. Ferrari, nor taken advice from him or communicated with him in any way", he said "I contest the report" - whatever the *** that means.

 

[Bolder]

Some thoughts (referring or not referring to previous posts in this thread):

1. Fuglsang's reaction is indeed managed very bad. On the other hand, there there is nothing that can be done in such a situation that will not be interpreted negatively by people. If you got mud thrown at you, some of it will always stick. Anyway, he could of course at least try to "keep a bit cleaner".

2. There is no other reason other than doping to contact Ferrari from a rider's perspective. So if this gets proven, the case is clear. Period.

3. Ferrari probably kept his knowledge on top of the game and knows about "new ways" of doping. But I also think this is not that much of an arms race as we think it is. When we have learned anything from Erfurt, than it is that the 1 extra percent is still easily achieved by doing blood doping without having to fear about getting caught by tests. And that was with a standard program without much assistance. So, the old "Ferrari-magic" is probably still working exceptional well.

I agree with all of the above. A few other thoughts:

--The report was leaked. We don't know if this is its final form, and whether there is anything actionable in it. It could very well be a case of: "Please look into this and let us know what you find. If what you found is only hearsay, than so be it, and there's not yet any charges or accusations we can formally make. "

--I personally think Vino should have been tossed out of cycling like LA and Ferrari, but if semi-repentant dopers like Vaughters and unrepentant ones like Valverde can still be at the heart of the sport than so can he, I guess. But I don't think it sets a great example. I'm not going out on a limb and saying that Astana or their riders are dirtier than others -- but every time I see Vino I think "cheater." Don't know why, it's irrational I know.

--Fuglsang's statements are correct. They are lawyered and crafted to allow neither an opening that could indicate guilt nor one that could open Astana up to later liability if he is indeed guilty. And to offer Astana plausible deniability. I wouldn't read anything into them.

--It should be relatively easy to track Ferrari's movements. If you are trying to find out whether he's meeting with active riders etc., a private investigator could surely do that. Of course it could be expensive and time consuming.

--Fuglsang's 2019 season was on the alien side. But then again, I have no idea what a "clean" dominant rider looks like. Does it look like MVDP, winning 365 days a year in 3 disciplines, or like Bernal, targeting one big race at age and winning it easily? Or like Alaphilippe, reaching a crazy peak but clearly falling off? Or like Sagan, dominating for years but with age catching up?

 

[manafana]

agree anyone even talking to ferrari knows what they are doing, so all we need is proof that either or astana met with him at some point and you can close the shutters.

 

[sir fly]

As if there is a better than Ferrari...

 

[yaco]

Come on. You can’t seriously be suggesting that there might be an innocent reason for a currently active pro to be working or training or regularly meeting with Michele Ferrari. If anyone is proven to be doing that, that’s as good as peeing hot.

The word in the WADA code is association with a banned person - The rule is a nonsense as athletes often associate with this group of people for a variety of reasons - Let's throw out this inane rule and actually try to find out if athletes are doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

agree anyone even talking to ferrari knows what they are doing, so all we need is proof that either or astana met with him at some point and you can close the shutters.

If only that was what the rule book actually said...

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

The word in the WADA code is association with a banned person - The rule is a nonsense as athletes often associate with this group of people for a variety of reasons - Let's throw out this inane rule and actually try to find out if athletes are doping.

That’s absurd. Proof that someone is training under a specialist doping doctor is more than enough to show that a rider is doping. It’s certainly stronger evidence of doping than missing three tests.

 

[Danskebjerge]

If only that was what the rule book actually said...

So your interpretation of the rules is ...?

 

[Amazinmets87]

"There is no other reason other than doping to contact Ferrari from a rider's perspective."


This is somewhat off-topic, but I'll ask anyway. Doesn't Ferrari have a wealth of cycling expertise outside the realm of doping?

E.g let's say there are two cyclists with identical genetic make-ups. Rider A has access to Ferrari and rider B does not. Ferrari does not have the ability to supply rider A with doping products.

Isn't rider A still at a significant advantage?

 

[GVFTA]

So your interpretation of the rules is ...?

The language is pretty clear if you've taken time yourself to read it. Meeting with someone who is banned is not punishable in and of itself.

 

[ppanther92]

"There is no other reason other than doping to contact Ferrari from a rider's perspective."

This is somewhat off-topic, but I'll ask anyway. Doesn't Ferrari have a wealth of cycling expertise outside the realm of doping?

He surely has. Conconi (mentor of Ferrari) is one of the most cited experts in scientific journals in the field, for example. The Conconi-test is, despite its age, still widely used in assesing anaerobic threshold. But the statement stands - at this point there is no other reason than doping to contact Ferrari. Even if there is no other sport scientist that is as good as him, his name is tainted and no sane rider would work with him for another reason than doping.

 

[hrotha]

It's funny to imagine the thought process that would lead a professional cyclist to be like "I don't care about the rules, I'm going to go work with Dr. Ferrari because I want to be as good as possible, but I'm not going to dope, that's illegal".

 

[yaco]

That’s absurd. Proof that someone is training under a specialist doping doctor is more than enough to show that a rider is doping. It’s certainly stronger evidence of doping than missing three tests.

This means diddly squat - You need at least some hard evidence like in Operation Aderlass case - Fuglsang could be taking 55 banned substances but an association with Dr Ferrari needs some other linking evidence.

 

[Sciatic]

I'm sure Amaury Sports is just tickled pink that the Fulsang news came out a day before they announce the details of the 2021 Tour Grand Depart in Denmark
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aso-detail-grand-depart-route-for-2021-tour-de-france/