Has Eddie lost it?

[ElChingon]

Eddie is saying what many here are saying as well so I guess the masses have lost it?

How can any of you disagree with not gifting stages?

How can you disagree with some other riders attacking from the gun to get something on Contador, ala Ciapucci? Yes, I doubt it will be A. Schleck or Wiggins but if it happened it would be something.

The anti-no-needle policy, well he obviously knows something we don't (first hand), someone should get him to elaborate for clarity

 

[thirteen]

What exactly is the proper form for opening a thread?

i think she meant forum not form.

this was started in the regular cycling forum rather than the Clinic where it belonged (as it related to doping).

 

[Anti-doping]

What the hell do you guys expect from a guy who introduced Lance to Dr.Ferrari?

That he one day should accept that pro-cycling need a paradigm shift. I do not care to much about Merckx use of doping...but care a lot that he don't see that the sport has to change. In some weird way he still talks as he is a part of the omerta..

To many (at least at this site) use way to much energy talking about Merckx's, Pharmstrongs, Indurains & Ulle's use of doping. That's the past. We should care about todays situation instead. Yes, there's some connections between the past and the current situation, but you can't change the past..so let us do something about the future.

 

[Angliru]

When I hear Merckx speak ill of his pal, Armstrong, then I may then begin listening to what he has to say. His criticism of Contador's "excuse" leaves me cold because he himself was guilty of cheating more than once and I do recall he had an "excuse" for his supposed transgressions too.

The reference to the Armstrong/Pantani incident on Mt. Ventoux: Is it any surprise that he uses LA as an example? The circumstances of course were entirely different and Merckx fails to mention that there would've been no drama had Armstrong not flaunted to the media afterwards that he "gifted" the stage to Pantani. That is when the controversy began. Both are proud champions that didn't particularly like one another. Armstrong didn't like Pantani because he was impulsive and would attack Armstrong and his blue train whenever he felt like it and Pantani likely didn't like Armstrong because he felt the need to refer to Pantani in the press as "Elephantino", a name that Pantani abhorred.

 

[Oldman]

When I hear Merckx speak ill of his pal, Armstrong, then I may then begin listening to what he has to say. His criticism of Contador's "excuse" leaves me cold because he himself was guilty of cheating more than once and I do recall he had an "excuse" for his supposed transgressions too.

The reference to the Armstrong/Pantani incident on Mt. Ventoux: Is it any surprise that he uses LA as an example? The circumstances of course were entirely different and Merckx fails to mention that there would've been no drama had Armstrong not flaunted to the media afterwards that he "gifted" the stage to Pantani. That is when the controversy began. Both are proud champions that didn't particularly like one another. Armstrong didn't like Pantani because he was impulsive and would attack Armstrong and his blue train whenever he felt like it and Pantani likely didn't like Armstrong because he felt the need to refer to Pantani in the press as "Elephantino", a name that Pantani abhorred.

You make one excellent point and a distinction Armstrong could never permit himself to learn about. Merckx is being disingenuous about stage gifting as it always occurred; they were just more dramatic about orchestrating the finish in his day so the Press would have fodder for The Epic Story. Since the reporters could only see a little and rely on the descriptions provided by others Merckx and his generation had more control over the "story" of each race. Now, with TV cameras up the a*s of each rider there's little mystery. That part of Merckx romantic view is a farce of his own creation, I'm afraid.

But LA showed little respect for any of his peers unless he knew he could beat them.

 

[roundabout]

Yeah the cirumstances were different. Gifting a stage to a schlub like Tiralongo who was never good enough to win anything on his own has entirely different connotations to Armstrong leaving Pantani at least temporarily without the satisfaction of a meaningful comeback after a year in the doldrums.

Difference is Pantani had a backbone to go with his talent. Tiralongo is a life domestique who is delighted with scraps.

Riders know when they were gifted a stage. I am certain Pantani knew that as well and didn't need Armstrong telling the world to realize what happened.

 

[just some guy]

Yeah the cirumstances were different. Gifting a stage to a schlub like Tiralongo who was never good enough to win anything on his own has entirely different connotations to Armstrong leaving Pantani at least temporarily without the satisfaction of a meaningful comeback after a year in the doldrums.

Difference is Pantani had a backbone to go with his talent. Tiralongo is a life domestique who is delighted with scraps.

Riders know when they were gifted a stage. I am certain Pantani knew that as well and didn't need Armstrong telling the world to realize what happened.

and when Tiralongo rides for Contador next year and destroys himself for his leader - who was Smart ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have to say - I read the thread title here first before reading the article, I was expecting a lot of ill advised or stupid comments.

The main point I would disagree with him on is saying WADA are to blame for the delay in hearing the Contador case, it was the UCI's original handling of the positive that lead to such a delay.

I can see his point about gifting stages, but again AC went on an attack that really was not necessary, so allowing Tiralongo the stage was the correct thing to do, both for sport and popularity.

As for 'no needles' - if he said anything else he would be hypocritical.

 

[roundabout]

and when Tiralongo rides for Contador next year and destroys himself for his leader - who was Smart ?

Yes, there's no better way to motivate a rider to do helper work than reminding him that he can't win on his own.

Whether or not it was smart wasn't the point I was making anyway.

 

[Parrulo]

Yes, there's no better way to motivate a rider to do helper work than reminding him that he can't win on his own.

Whether or not it was smart wasn't the point I was making anyway.

thats silly.

i doubt tiralongo sees it that way. imo the way he sees it(and the way i see and prolly most people see it) is that contador showed his gratitude towards tiralongo for all the work he done for contador in the past.

if contador hadn't given the stage to tiralongo, him(tiralongo) prolly wouldn't sign for contador for the next season (speculation) because he would see contador as some1 ungrateful. but since contador gave him the stage tiralongo will prolly be more then happy to rejoin contador's team and work for some who appreciates and is grateful for his work.

but ofc every1 has to see everything contador does has a bad thing . . .

merckx is cycling's pele. a legend and ambassador of the sport that can make for a great show pony but unfortunately likse to talk and says a bunch of nonsense crap

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Good discussion.

I have a hard figuring where I stand on the 'gifting' issue. As I saw it, Conti at the Giro was working on-the-road diplomacy, and not necessarily just giving them away.

That stage (the Tiralongo one) where AC jumped from the field, came up on him, and obviously said "get on my wheel" and then essentially towed him to the line is not poor form.

Why not give him the stage? AC's got everything going for him, and is recognizing the effort and b*lls it took for that break to stick it out that long and still fight over the last couple of kms.

Tiralongo deserved that respect, and AC's got the class to recognize that.

That being said, don't get me started on last year's Tour...

 

[Angliru]

You make one excellent point and a distinction Armstrong could never permit himself to learn about. Merckx is being disingenuous about stage gifting as it always occurred; they were just more dramatic about orchestrating the finish in his day so the Press would have fodder for The Epic Story. Since the reporters could only see a little and rely on the descriptions provided by others Merckx and his generation had more control over the "story" of each race. Now, with TV cameras up the a*s of each rider there's little mystery. That part of Merckx romantic view is a farce of his own creation, I'm afraid.

But LA showed little respect for any of his peers unless he knew he could beat them.

...and as if there weren't more Armstrong gifts. Are we to believe that Hamilton with a broken clavicle would've won the Tour stage from his solo break if not for Armstrong/US Postal controlling the peloton and preventing any chance of the other team's stopping what was a gift to faithful former teammate and a great story for the press/media? In this case it was an entire team and management helping another team's rider to a stage win.

 

[hfer07]

I'm OK with most of his statement EXCEPT FOR:
1-) the "Armstrong" comparison-just out of place
2-) the give away stages by Contador: It's up to him to do it or not & neither Merckx nor anyone can put a question mark on that. Alberto won two stages & the overall by a huge margin- what more can he ask for? Greed is what turns rider into a target among the peloton & teams alike.

 

[c&cfan]

Oh, look. The Lance crew is once again trying to apply the doping policy of the 2000's to the 70's in order to minimize Armstrong's fraudulent results. Merckx would have won the Tour multiple times if he and the entire peloton was clean. Lance would never have placed in the top five. That makes Lance the biggest benficiary of drugs.

Merckx is living in the past. I giggle at the thought of Wiggins attacking Contador, not just at the start of the race but at any point in the race.

lance crew? take it easy little man...

if you never saw\heard\read nothing about merckx or about lance, or if you really have some problem related to your lack of intelligence i understand you.

merckx had the money and his own team, the other competitors were farmers or hard working man that started racing a bike. there was no "peak" so the guy with bigger endurance had an huge advantage for the whole year. when new drug tests came---merckx busted.--now, what about 2 years suspensions and more?? what about the fact that he had much more advantages regarding differences between the products(in quality) against those guys than, lets say, armstrong over hamilton(and the rest)?

merckx had the "system", the era and the drugs that made possible 525 victories.
lance had the tour. top five? i don't know if his talent was enough for that but for sure that it was enough for some monuments.

again, merckx had everything... what if agostinho wasn't a farmer even during his pro time? what if he was an athlete instead of a courier during war? the same can be said about dozens of other riders.

merckx represents what is wrong with this sport.
as long as he is seen as legend, cycling is doomed, obviously. that's too much hypocrisy.

-------------------

give them steroids, amphetamines, alcohol and all the other things that merckx was taking (plus using the same bike that they are used to) and half the peloton will beat his hour.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Good discussion.

I have a hard figuring where I stand on the 'gifting' issue. As I saw it, Conti at the Giro was working on-the-road diplomacy, and not necessarily just giving them away.

That stage (the Tiralongo one) where AC jumped from the field, came up on him, and obviously said "get on my wheel" and then essentially towed him to the line is not poor form.

Why not give him the stage? AC's got everything going for him, and is recognizing the effort and b*lls it took for that break to stick it out that long and still fight over the last couple of kms.

Tiralongo deserved that respect, and AC's got the class to recognize that.

That being said, don't get me started on last year's Tour...

Apart from the fact that Eddy has obviously hit his head on the floor too often and is suffering from the after effects.

Merckx is as old skool as they come. How many times did he test positive? And that was in the days when there really was no dope testing.

As for Dertie gifting stages - given that Dertie was being given a kicking for taking the **** and being as dirty as they come, he was gifting stages in a bid to look slight less of a **** than he normally does. It was PR and nothing less, I am quite sure that Riis was in his ear telling him not to make it quite so obvious.

 

[Oldman]

Yeah the cirumstances were different. Gifting a stage to a schlub like Tiralongo who was never good enough to win anything on his own has entirely different connotations to Armstrong leaving Pantani at least temporarily without the satisfaction of a meaningful comeback after a year in the doldrums.

Difference is Pantani had a backbone to go with his talent. Tiralongo is a life domestique who is delighted with scraps.

Riders know when they were gifted a stage. I am certain Pantani knew that as well and didn't need Armstrong telling the world to realize what happened.

That's a pretty harsh judgement of a rider that had no one else with him except Contador at the end of that stage and with everyone chasing them. I don't think any riders that are capable of finishing a stage race like the Giro consider a higher finish "scraps".
Pantani had a ferocious ego that emerged over several seasons and was amply fueled by every PED available as he was a protected rider. Given those opportunities riders like Ricco develop similar "backbone".

 

[ElChingon]

The reference to the Armstrong/Pantani incident on Mt. Ventoux: Is it any surprise that he uses LA as an example? The circumstances of course were entirely different and Merckx fails to mention that there would've been no drama had Armstrong not flaunted to the media afterwards that he "gifted" the stage to Pantani. That is when the controversy began. Both are proud champions that didn't particularly like one another. Armstrong didn't like Pantani because he was impulsive and would attack Armstrong and his blue train whenever he felt like it and Pantani likely didn't like Armstrong because he felt the need to refer to Pantani in the press as "Elephantino", a name that Pantani abhorred.

First off never are any two different incidents exactly the same, comparisons are always off in some regard. But the story goes beyond that, I remember Lance going off on Pantani because he self-picked his nickname "il Pirata", and went on how you can't pick your own nickname and went off saying he was going to call himself "Big Tex" or something like that if he could pick his own nickname. Then there was a whole nickname barrage in the forums at the time, not CN because it didn't exist yet (the Forum). Their fighting was actually good for cycling because there was finally someone to challenge Armstrong, too bad it didn't last. We need more story telling on what actually transpired from the riders, be it someone within ear shot or a teammate. Too bad Pantani's death has pretty much sealed any such discussion on those days.

 

[MarkvW]

First off never are any two different incidents exactly the same, comparisons are always off in some regard. But the story goes beyond that, I remember Lance going off on Pantani because he self-picked his nickname "il Pirata", and went on how you can't pick your own nickname and went off saying he was going to call himself "Big Tex" or something like that if he could pick his own nickname. Then there was a whole nickname barrage in the forums at the time, not CN because it didn't exist yet (the Forum). Their fighting was actually good for cycling because there was finally someone to challenge Armstrong, too bad it didn't last. We need more story telling on what actually transpired from the riders, be it someone within ear shot or a teammate. Too bad Pantani's death has pretty much sealed any such discussion on those days.

The "Pirate" nickname was Pantani's response to his "Elephant" nickname (because of his ears). I don't blame him.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I remember Lance going off on Pantani because he self-picked his nickname "il Pirata", and went on how you can't pick your own nickname and went off saying he was going to call himself "Big Tex" or something like that if he could pick his own nickname.

If you do not pick your own nickname then you could end up as Koko instead of T-Bone.

 

[rhubroma]

The thing is I had the displeasure of listening to his collective inanities throughout the Giro.

He's for the omertà. Doesn't want us to scrutiny the elephant that's among us. This is what resonated from his point of view. When asked about doping issues, his most typical reply was that "I'm tired of the media only talking about doping in cycling. What's calcio doing? Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, etc."

He want's to sweep things under the carpet. He's part of the establishment, like Verdrugen and McMoron and it is evident by what comes out of his mouth.

 

[auscyclefan94]

so who knows more of pro cycling?eddy the canibal merckx/some random guys from the internet?i rest my case...
i'm with eddy on this one minus the thing with alberto giving away stages.even he says that maybe that helps you and people won't hate your awesomeness that much.

I don't agree. Just because someone has been a pro cyclist that's not right to say that a fan/s opinion is never right if it is to the contrary to a person of authorities opinion.

 

[Grand Tourist]

Merckx never gave a stage / race away in his whole career & never asked for anything in return. The idea of doing so is completely inexplicable to him. He just doesn't 'get' Contadors gifts.

He has a point about the 'no needle' policy - it's absurd. If riders are allowed to take vitamins, painkillers, glucose etc then to my mind it's irrelevant how they are consumed.

His relationship with doping is much more 'complex'. I can't really find it in myself to be over critical of his doping activities during the 60's & 70's. It wasn't taken seriously at all in those days & it's unfair to judge Merckx by todays standards. That being said the fact that Merckx is chummy with Dr Ferrari (who 'treated' the boy Axel) & Armstrong is 'unfortunate'.

 

[rhubroma]

Merckx never gave a stage / race away in his whole career & never asked for anything in return. The idea of doing so is completely inexplicable to him. He just doesn't 'get' Contadors gifts.

He has a point about the 'no needle' policy - it's absurd. If riders are allowed to take vitamins, painkillers, glucose etc then to my mind it's irrelevant how they are consumed.

His relationship with doping is much more 'complex'. I can't really find it in myself to be over critical of his doping activities during the 60's & 70's. It wasn't taken seriously at all in those days & it's unfair to judge Merckx by todays standards. That being said the fact that Merckx is chummy with Dr Ferrari (who 'treated' the boy Axel) & Armstrong is 'unfortunate'.

Yes, unfortunate indeed. The problem I have with the guy is that he tried to shut-up a journalist on the RAI sport Giro broadcast, for asking an inconvenient question.

That during his era doping wasn't seen in a "serious" light, as you claim, is what precisely led to the subsequent arms race once science invented the turbo boosters. At the very least this, along with the present doping issues with the sport, should allow him to measure his words, but rather than doing so he even tried to intimidate some Italian journalist for drawing attention to that which Eddie doesn't want us to see or discuss (he even specifically said this, citing as he did the case of it not being addressed with soccer).

As far as the needles go. Good riddance. We live in an pharmaceutical addicted society, this is why they are so prevalent. If the athletes can only be "healthy" with them, then there is indeed something wrong with the sport.

 

[Escarabajo]

Here's just one:


Regarding the OP, here's a couple more:
Like that has ANYTHING to do with what took place at this year's Giro. Last time I checked, Contador wasn't too concerned with having people say, "Oh yes, Alberto, bravo! That's exactly how Lance would've behaved, and we applaud you for that!"

You have to love this one:
LOL!!!

I'm sure Contador stays up at night fretting over what to do if Frank or Bradley "attack him right at the start." As for Andy? For some reason I doubt that the team strategy will have him jumping ahead of Alberto "right at the start." But if he does, I hear that Contador is pretty good in the mountains. And from what I understand, there is more than one in this year's TdF.
OMG, what will he do!?!?!?!

Eddy: Great champion.

Eddy: More annoying with every passing year.

+1.

Just starting reading this thread, but I agree with this answer.

Also agree with hrotha proposal on Doctors.

I think Merckx was a little vague on his stance about needles. Should be on emergencies only, but if cyclists are not physiologically fit maybe they should not be there. That is not a reason to start using testosterone and human growth hormone. Now they will claim it is for hydration purposes, but if that is truth I am Christopher Columbus. Maybe Tour's Doctor or third party doctors should make the call. Remember the Jonathan Vaughters incident. Who would not have agreed to give him a shot? Isn’t that an emergency situation? He had to retire. That could have been the leader. But we all know what the leader would have done in that case.

And one last thing, it is the Tour where people sit in and defend their position, not the Giro. He should watch cycling more often.

 

[Escarabajo]

I think that gifting stages at the Giro worked on Contador's benefit. His situation is rather difficult now that he faced criticism for the "chain gate" and also the use of Clenbuterol. Besides his team wasn't the strongest one at the Giro and might not be the strongest at the Tour, so hey, why not keep making friends in the pro-peloton.