Fuglsang and Lutsenko under investigation for cooperation with Michele Ferrari.

[tobydawq]

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.

Alright, champ.

Did you manage to put all those nice words together without mentally stimulating chemical aids?

 

[nayr497]

Uh, now we probably know why Fuglsang has developed into a serious GC contender in his mid 30s.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Big diffetence between, rider who used to dope, and an actual doping doctor.

Both are subject to the prohibited association rule. So no difference. Except I suspect more people would recognise LA on a Honda 50 than would recognise Ferrari.

 

[fmk_RoI]

. 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.

"I don't want whistle blowers identified. I want identifying information about them so they can be identified."

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

I thought it was obvious how the media got the story.

 

[del1962]

There is nothing about a sportsman that makes him any more immune to stupidity as the rest of the population

 

[ciranda]

"I don't want whistle blowers identified. I want identifying information about them so they can be identified."

Yes if you want them to be credible sources in your story. You need to establish credentials to give their opinions weight. Just titles like 'DS' 'ex-pro' 'social media influencer' 'carpenter' etc obviously.

 

[Joelsim]

No one here has any idea of what evidence there is in the report, so to assume anything at this point is foolish.

 

[Sciatic]

I have to say it's impressive that some of you still have these higher standards (compared to my view of American media) you place (or would like to see) in your media, such as expecting to see something more substantiated before reporting the alleged Fulsang-Ferrari connection. I'm not being sarcastic, I have no such faith in U.S. media.

 

[Danskebjerge]

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.

Partly true, but it's not the sport that does it - it's the competition.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yeah, and it's not like he was squeaky clean before. The way he climbed during the 2009 Dauphiné, dropping Contador and Cadel "Ferrari engine" Evans came way out of left field

CQ Ranking - Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, Stage 5 : Valence - Mont Ventoux

CQ Ranking is the world's leading cycling ranking and extensive results database. Also known as Cycling Quotient.

cqranking.com

Let's not rewrite history too much though. That was one of the infamous last hurrahs of the original incarnation of Cadel Evans, sitting in the maillot jaune expecting others to do all his work for him as Valverde rode off into the distance with Szmyd a willing co-conspirator, as that was the day Valverde almost came to a halt to let Szmyd through. The pace behind was very pedestrian for much of the climb and Fuglsang was at that point something of a wildcard, having come from mountain biking and on his first pro team. Nobody paid him any attention when he attacked, and Contador was in full on Tour warmup mode and didn't attack once in any of those mountain stages, more just sticking with Evans and acting in such a way that helped Valverde - who couldn't ride the Tour - take the win. He lost 20" just on the final kilometre in Briançon the next day, before he and Gesink rode back to the Evans/Contador/Valverde trio as they messed about on the final stage to Saint-François-Longchamp, after Evans had a few goes at dispatching Valverde, unsuccessfully. In the end Fuglsang was dropped toward the end but caught and crossed the line ahead of Contador after the latter sat up coming to the line.

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. Because he's a rider we'd got a handle on. We knew what he was about, what his level was, what expected results and performance levels were from him. We'd had a decade to get used to him following that 2009 emergence, after all. As a result, his suddenly finding an extra two or three gears now set far more spidey senses tingling than if he had shown the same improvement in around 2012-13, rather like, say, Mauro Santambrogio or Raúl Alarcón.

 

[42x16ss]

Not really surprising - a team with a leader who has committed fraud and used doping isn't reliable.

That's just about every team on some level...

 

[Danskebjerge]

That's just about every team on some level...

I believe Vinokourov is one of the worst. But in any case, working for such guys carries a risk of being subject to suspicion.

 

[42x16ss]

I believe Vinokourov is one of the worst. But in any case, working for such guys carries a risk of being subject to suspicion.

Vino got caught. That's all

 

[Rollthedice]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/B8HaYJeFjb0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/B8HaYJeFjb0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

He might as well say that the rumours are true, because that's a very awkward response. Why not deny any involvement with Ferrari generally? He does not have to meet him in person to work with him. And I don't care about any "proceedings" - why not simply say that he committed no fraud?

 

[Rollthedice]

He might as well say that the rumours are true, because that's a very awkward response. Why not deny any involvement with Ferrari generally? He does not have to meet him in person to work with him. And I don't care about any "proceedings" - why not simply say that he committed no fraud?

Ambiguous indeed. Dottor Ferrari wrote a better statement.

 

[Joelsim]

I contest that I met Dr Ferrari. I can’t have done as I was at PizzaExpress in Woking.

 

[The Hegelian]

Uh, now we probably know why Fuglsang has developed into a serious GC contender in his mid 30s.

Yep. There comes a point where you have to decide......

 

[Koronin]

That is an oddly worded denial.

 

[JosephK]

Can Fuglsang afford to hire Froome's lawyers?

 

[yaco]

A number of the American peleton are in contact with LA for various reasons - It's not just TVG - The association rule has its flaws and limitations and is a case of WADA over-stepping the mark,

 

[The Hegelian]

A number of the American peleton are in contact with LA for various reasons - It's not just TVG - The association rule has its flaws and limitations and is a case of WADA over-stepping the mark,

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

 

[Merckx index]

That is an oddly worded denial.

It sure is.

"I contest that I have met with Dr. Ferrari."

Did I steal cookies? If I didn't, I'm sure not going to say "I contest that I did", or "my position is that I didn't".

It does sound like lawyer-speak, so if/when he's convicted or confesses later, he can argue that he didn't lie in his initial response. "Oh, I never claimed that I didn't meet with Ferrari, I just said I was going to contest the accusation that I did. I have a perfect right to contest any claim against me, even if that claim happens to be true."

 

[Koronin]

It sure is.

"I contest that I have met with Dr. Ferrari."

Did I steal cookies? If I didn't, I'm sure not going to say "I contest that I did", or "my position is that I didn't".

It does sound like lawyer-speak, so if/when he's convicted or confesses later, he can argue that he didn't lie in his initial response. "Oh, I never claimed that I didn't meet with Ferrari, I just said I was going to contest the accusation that I did. I have a perfect right to contest any claim against me, even if that claim happens to be true."

I think over the year's I've heard way too many non apology apologies from athletes and this, whatever it is, is stranger than most of those. I've heard some of those non apologies that no one can figure out what they are supposed to be apologizing for in the first place. I would be more likely to go with the "I didn't do anything wrong". However, I will give him credit for being the first to use "I contest that I did"....