Hamilton's Comments on Ferrari

[odelltrclan]

I am new to writing on these boards though I have been reading them from time to time for years. I was a huge LA fan and never doubted him at all until I saw his actions towards Filippo Simeoni in the 2004 tour. I could not fathom why Armstrong would do such a thing.

I thought that Chris Carmichael was Armstrong's coach. It seems he had been associated with Armstrong for many years. So, I guess my questions would be

1. Has Carmichael ever been quoted as to why Armstrong would have been seeking training advice from Michele Ferrari if he already had a coach and trainer.

2. Hamilton said in his interview with 60 minutes more or less that Ferrari was a genius more or less with training regimens making it sound like he did far more than doping but was actually providing training information.

3. Does Hamilton's gushing over Ferrari on 60 minutes bring less credibility to his interview in general?

Would a professional athlete with years of experience need multiple coaches to help their programs? Wouldn't one be offended if his athlete was seeking advice of another and thus seemingly altering the regimen used by the first coach?

Perhaps some of you expert cyclists can clarify.

 

[sniper]

I am new to writing on these boards though I have been reading them from time to time for years. I was a huge LA fan and never doubted him at all until I saw his actions towards Filippo Simeoni in the 2004 tour. I could not fathom why Armstrong would do such a thing.

I thought that Chris Carmichael was Armstrong's coach. It seems he had been associated with Armstrong for many years. So, I guess my questions would be

1. Has Carmichael ever been quoted as to why Armstrong would have been seeking training advice from Michele Ferrari if he already had a coach and trainer.

2. Hamilton said in his interview with 60 minutes more or less that Ferrari was a genius more or less with training regimens making it sound like he did far more than doping but was actually providing training information.

3. Does Hamilton's gushing over Ferrari on 60 minutes bring less credibility to his interview in general?

Would a professional athlete with years of experience need multiple coaches to help their programs? Wouldn't one be offended if his athlete was seeking advice of another and thus seemingly altering the regimen used by the first coach?

Perhaps some of you expert cyclists can clarify.

Questioning Hamilton's credibility makes no sense, regardless of whom you're supporting.
Human logic suggests he is a 100% credible (barring possible memory gaps, such as Floyd saying TdS 2002 instead of 2001, but that has nothing to do with credibility).

 

[Big Doopie]

ferrari is not a cycling coach.

he is a doping coach. His speciality is blood. Not cycling.

however, success in cycling has in the last 20 years been dictated by success in doping -- and specifically blood doping.

ferrari "coaches" how to dope, how to use dope to extend training, how to dope to pass tests, etc...In that sense it is probably way more important than having a coach who is telling you when to do intervals.

note that before the arrival of epo, riders didn't have doctors following them. teams didn't really have doctors. there was the doctor for the whole tour, for example, who helped all riders and then you had team managers who dealt with tactics and some training, not these countless individual and team doctors, doctors who have nothing specifically to do with cycling, just blood.

 

[thehog]

Questioning Hamilton's credibility makes no sense, regardless of whom you're supporting.
Human logic suggests he is a 100% credible (barring possible memory gaps, such as Floyd saying TdS 2002 instead of 2001, but that has nothing to do with credibility).

I think you've fallen for the new tactic. Gush boards with 50,000 threads and mix the message. Why do we keep replying to these new thread which are obviously posted to wind up forumites?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am new to writing on these boards though I have been reading them from time to time for years. I was a huge LA fan and never doubted him at all until I saw his actions towards Filippo Simeoni in the 2004 tour. I could not fathom why Armstrong would do such a thing.

I thought that Chris Carmichael was Armstrong's coach. It seems he had been associated with Armstrong for many years. So, I guess my questions would be

1. Has Carmichael ever been quoted as to why Armstrong would have been seeking training advice from Michele Ferrari if he already had a coach and trainer.

2. Hamilton said in his interview with 60 minutes more or less that Ferrari was a genius more or less with training regimens making it sound like he did far more than doping but was actually providing training information.

3. Does Hamilton's gushing over Ferrari on 60 minutes bring less credibility to his interview in general?

Would a professional athlete with years of experience need multiple coaches to help their programs? Wouldn't one be offended if his athlete was seeking advice of another and thus seemingly altering the regimen used by the first coach?

Perhaps some of you expert cyclists can clarify.

Welcome.

Armstrong gave the reasons that Ferrari was an edition to his 'technical staff' at the time it became public in 2001:

"Ferrari is part of my technical staff," added Armstrong. "He is added to Carmichael who is my real coach and my point of technical reference, as well as with all my other consultants. Ferrari in particular follows my diet, the tests, altitude preparation, and the use of a hypobaric chamber."

Ferrari is also a 'coach', but as you point out these are professional athletes who should know how to train. Ferraris is a hematologist, his expertise is blood.

Tyler bringing up Ferrari adds to the credibility of what he says as it backs up Landis and what has been reported about Ferrari for years.

 

[simo1733]

I am new to writing on these boards though I have been reading them from time to time for years. I was a huge LA fan and never doubted him at all until I saw his actions towards Filippo Simeoni in the 2004 tour. I could not fathom why Armstrong would do such a thing.

I thought that Chris Carmichael was Armstrong's coach. It seems he had been associated with Armstrong for many years. So, I guess my questions would be

1. Has Carmichael ever been quoted as to why Armstrong would have been seeking training advice from Michele Ferrari if he already had a coach and trainer.

2. Hamilton said in his interview with 60 minutes more or less that Ferrari was a genius more or less with training regimens making it sound like he did far more than doping but was actually providing training information.

3. Does Hamilton's gushing over Ferrari on 60 minutes bring less credibility to his interview in general?

Would a professional athlete with years of experience need multiple coaches to help their programs? Wouldn't one be offended if his athlete was seeking advice of another and thus seemingly altering the regimen used by the first coach?

Perhaps some of you expert cyclists can clarify.

I have seen a lot of opinions expressed on these pages that while Ferrari is indeed a brilliant prepatore,Carmichael by comparison is a bit of an idiot.Hence he is AKA Chris Comical.

 

[odelltrclan]

Questioning Hamilton's credibility makes no sense, regardless of whom you're supporting.
Human logic suggests he is a 100% credible (barring possible memory gaps, such as Floyd saying TdS 2002 instead of 2001, but that has nothing to do with credibility).

I am not trying to question Hamilton's credibility just an inconsistency in what I saw as somewhat of an apologetic interview. That is one reason why I posted a question after years of just reading. His interview made it sound like Ferrari was an incredible resource for cycling training regimens and not necessarily doping though he did insist he went to him and was given doping advice.

Also, to assume anyone is 100% credible after Hamilton's fiasco with the vanishing twin defense (which I bought at the time) is grossly naive. I am no Lance Armstrong supporter, nor Tyler Hamilton. I believe Tyler, but was a bit bothered by some of those comments concerning Ferrari in the way they were spoken.

So given Hamilton's history (vehemently denying doping) how could YOU now say he is 100% credible?

 

[odelltrclan]

I think you've fallen for the new tactic. Gush boards with 50,000 threads and mix the message. Why do we keep replying to these new thread which are obviously posted to wind up forumites?

There is no "tactic" here. It is a simple question and would be difficult for me to find answers given the myriad of threads and posts. I tried to do a search on this site and found nothing discussing this. You sound like you believe everyone who posts has some devious motive. That is sad!

 

[red_flanders]

I am not trying to question Hamilton's credibility just an inconsistency in what I saw as somewhat of an apologetic interview. That is one reason why I posted a question after years of just reading. His interview made it sound like Ferrari was an incredible resource for cycling training regimens and not necessarily doping though he did insist he went to him and was given doping advice.

Also, to assume anyone is 100% credible after Hamilton's fiasco with the vanishing twin defense (which I bought at the time) is grossly naive. I am no Lance Armstrong supporter, nor Tyler Hamilton. I believe Tyler, but was a bit bothered by some of those comments concerning Ferrari in the way they were spoken.

So given Hamilton's history (vehemently denying doping) how could YOU now say he is 100% credible?

To the bolded red, not sure what to say except the second two directly refute the first.

To the bolded black, I see nothing even mildly surprising about his statements. Completely consistent with every who's worked with Ferrari and talked about him. Brilliant trainer and preparatore. Uses a full doping regimen. The two statements are in no way in conflict.

 

[Big Doopie]

So given Hamilton's history (vehemently denying doping) how could YOU now say he is 100% credible?

very simple.

because in both situations he is doing what benefits him most.

it benefitted him most to lie when doping (he even says that "with a little luck" he would still be racing).

similarly -- and arguably more so -- he benefits now from telling the truth to the grand jury. lying now would be disastrous and bring prosecution. in fact, he has absolutely no reason/motivation to lie now.

so if you use any bit of common sense you would realize that you are simply wrong.

but common sense is not what you are concerned with as clearly you are simply trying to flame. consider this my last response to any of your posts.

 

[sniper]

I am not trying to question Hamilton's credibility just an inconsistency in what I saw as somewhat of an apologetic interview. That is one reason why I posted a question after years of just reading. His interview made it sound like Ferrari was an incredible resource for cycling training regimens and not necessarily doping though he did insist he went to him and was given doping advice.

Also, to assume anyone is 100% credible after Hamilton's fiasco with the vanishing twin defense (which I bought at the time) is grossly naive. I am no Lance Armstrong supporter, nor Tyler Hamilton. I believe Tyler, but was a bit bothered by some of those comments concerning Ferrari in the way they were spoken.

So given Hamilton's history (vehemently denying doping) how could YOU now say he is 100% credible?

as I said, in keeping with human logic, hamilton was being as earnest as one can possibly be.
If you don't see that, then get dry behind the ears first, do some years of backpacking or something else that enables you to get some life experience, and we speak again afterwards.

 

[alvynmcq]

Does credibility really matter if someone is telling the truth?

He is right about Ferrari, he is a genius, he is the best at what he does.

 

[Cloxxki]

Chris was just less vital in Lance's transformation that he was given credit for. the cadance thing may have been his idea, and seemed to work well for Lance, but in Ullrich-cadance he's have won as well. The cadance thing did distract (me amongst others) from the real deal, the medical improvements. Tour focus helped as well, to explain the improvements. Weight loss was mentioned, and most likely overstated. It all helped to make a clean ride seem doable. But now knowing that even Ullrich had to dope to do what he did, we understand how extraterrestial Lance's rides really were.
Without doping, Lance would maybe still have gotten his WC, but years later than he did. Possibly too deep into the EPO era, losing it for that reason anyway. If he wasn't an early EPO adopter, he sure was a great one-day rider.
Or, were they all blood doping before EPO arrived? I've heard mentions of this, but seen no clear indications.

 

[odelltrclan]

To the bolded red, not sure what to say except the second two directly refute the first.

To the bolded black, I see nothing even mildly surprising about his statements. Completely consistent with every who's worked with Ferrari and talked about him. Brilliant trainer and preparatore. Uses a full doping regimen. The two statements are in no way in conflict.

Let me clarify. The premise of the thread was not primarily to discuss Hamilton's credibility, which already has been called into question by his past history of lying, so there is no logical defendable comment that could be made that he is 100% credible which I was pointing out.

I was simply pointing out that Tyler sought out Ferrari for doping and training and he seemed to indicate that Ferrari was providing incredible training advice as well. It SEEMED apologetic to me. Which seems to possibly hurt to hurt the credibility a little.

My main question had to do with Ferrari as a trainer. Others answered it respectfully with good comments. Some of you immediately attack the messenger. Some of you people are vultures, trying to find hidden meanings where they don't belong. How sad!

 

[pedaling squares]

odell, you are coming across a bit strong for a newcomer. Have we met? You've presented some questions, allow people to answer.

 

[alvynmcq]

Let me clarify. The premise of the thread was not primarily to discuss Hamilton's credibility, which already has been called into question by his past history of lying, so there is no logical defendable comment that could be made that he is 100% credible which I was pointing out.

I was simply pointing out that Tyler sought out Ferrari for doping and training and he seemed to indicate that Ferrari was providing incredible training advice as well. It SEEMED apologetic to me. Which seems to possibly hurt to hurt the credibility a little.

My main question had to do with Ferrari as a trainer. Others answered it respectfully with good comments. Some of you immediately attack the messenger. Some of you people are vultures, trying to find hidden meanings where they don't belong. How sad!

Steady on bucko.

I think Ferrari was probably brought to Tyler when he joined the A team at USPS rather than him seeking him out. I am also sure that when Armstrong sought out Ferrari's help he knew exactly what he would bring to the team.

Why did Armstrong seek out the help of one of the most infamous doping doctors in cycling history?

 

[Race Radio]

Many addicts love their dealers.....

 

[Granville57]

There is no "tactic" here. It is a simple question and would be difficult for me to find answers given the myriad of threads and posts. I tried to do a search on this site and found nothing discussing this.

In your exhaustive efforts, did you ever try searching on "Carmichael" or "Ferrari"?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12728&highlight=carmichael]http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12728&highlight=carmichael[/URL]
-----------------

From Lance Armstrong's War:

"Ferrari's brilliant, and I think there's no doubt that Lance listens to him carefully. On the tour, I can say that Carmichael's just not that involved. I think he's busy with TV stuff." -Jeff Spencer (Chiropractor)

"That is a very interesting question. A lot of people would say that is the question." -Jonathan Vaughters

And one of my favorites:
"Come on. You've met them both. Who would you listen to?" -Floyd Landis
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=399048&highlight=listen#post399048

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

2. Hamilton said in his interview with 60 minutes more or less that Ferrari was a genius more or less with training regimens making it sound like he did far more than doping but was actually providing training information.

3. Does Hamilton's gushing over Ferrari on 60 minutes bring less credibility to his interview in general?

Many addicts love their dealers.....

First, as funny as Race Radios comment is, there's a lot of truth to that.

On #2: IMHO any athlete wants to know who the leaders in the training/conditioning fields are because they want to reach their full potential. It is my understanding that Ferrari was an expert in sport science (the part without doping). His history in the development of training programmes for professional cyclists and testing techniques for human performance goes back to the early 1980's, including helping Moser beat the hour record. In those days, most likely done without delving too deeply, if at all, into doping. The point being, and to answer #2, he has the expertise to provide very helpful training information.

On #3: Tyler's gushing over Ferrari should not damage his credibility. Because of what I say above (in #2), I think many athletes, not just Tyler, would respect Ferrari's knowledge of training and conditioning. There are many brilliant minds in the world in different disciplines, and some of them take an unfortunate or wrong turn along the way. I'd put Ferrari in that class, knowing that he would still be considered an expert in training if drugs did not exist.

Ya, and welcome to the jungle.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I think you've fallen for the new tactic. Gush boards with 50,000 threads and mix the message. Why do we keep replying to these new thread which are obviously posted to wind up forumites?

Agreed. The is Charmichael still, was the giveaway. I wonder if the poster is paid directly by Fabiani.

 

[MrRoboto]

Training on drugs and training clean are two different things.

 

[VeloCity]

I was simply pointing out that Tyler sought out Ferrari for doping and training and he seemed to indicate that Ferrari was providing incredible training advice as well. It SEEMED apologetic to me. Which seems to possibly hurt to hurt the credibility a little.

My main question had to do with Ferrari as a trainer. Others answered it respectfully with good comments. Some of you immediately attack the messenger. Some of you people are vultures, trying to find hidden meanings where they don't belong. How sad!

I've posted this elsewhere before, but I think this quote from Squinzi, the Mapei CEO who banned his riders from working with Ferrari, pretty much sums up the general opinion of Ferrari:

"I think he [Ferrari] is one of the most knowledgeable and best trainers in cycling, but I also think he is a person who operates without any moral restrictions whatsoever."

In other words, no reason that Ferrari couldn't be both - a brilliant trainer and at the same time a doping doc. Almost certainly it was that combination that made him so sought after. So not really surprising that Hamilton would sing Ferrari's praises as a trainer - he probably was a great trainer. Just happened that the training also involved the use of PEDs.

 

[hektoren]

ferrari is not a cycling coach.

he is a doping coach. His speciality is blood. Not cycling.

however, success in cycling has in the last 20 years been dictated by success in doping -- and specifically blood doping.

ferrari "coaches" how to dope, how to use dope to extend training, how to dope to pass tests, etc...In that sense it is probably way more important than having a coach who is telling you when to do intervals.

Oh, but you're wrong. Ferrari is a brilliant cycling coach as well. If all he did was work with dope, he'd be out of business real quick.
Go to http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=front and read up on some of his articles and see for yourself. Some of them are very, very good, dope or no dope.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Carmichael was a Doper

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that Carmichael was doping Armstrong and his peers on USAC's junior team.

Along with Rene Wenzel and at least one other, Carmichael was administering PED's to kids. Nice, right?

That said selecting a coach is price sensitive too. I'm sure Carmichael's price is much lower than Ferrari's.

 

[odelltrclan]

First, as funny as Race Radios comment is, there's a lot of truth to that.

On #2: IMHO any athlete wants to know who the leaders in the training/conditioning fields are because they want to reach their full potential. It is my understanding that Ferrari was an expert in sport science (the part without doping). His history in the development of training programmes for professional cyclists and testing techniques for human performance goes back to the early 1980's, including helping Moser beat the hour record. In those days, most likely done without delving too deeply, if at all, into doping. The point being, and to answer #2, he has the expertise to provide very helpful training information.

On #3: Tyler's gushing over Ferrari should not damage his credibility. Because of what I say above (in #2), I think many athletes, not just Tyler, would respect Ferrari's knowledge of training and conditioning. There are many brilliant minds in the world in different disciplines, and some of them take an unfortunate or wrong turn along the way. I'd put Ferrari in that class, knowing that he would still be considered an expert in training if drugs did not exist.

Ya, and welcome to the jungle.

Thank you (and those decent responders) very much for sharing this information. There seems to be lots of paranoid buffoons on these boards and you certainly are not one of them.