Hincapie's book

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bosco10 said:
Oh yeah! Georgie porgie, pudding and pie, kisses Lance's azz, but doesn't cry.. cuz he skimmed millions on the fly.. but beware of karma Georgie, it's the b- itch in your eye.
I don't know about this. Unless the guy gets associated with the same fraud/theft public opinion that Armstrong gets, I think he is okay.

A dozen anonymous Internet crackpots who have the story more or less right is a hollow victory. Yuck.
 
DirtyWorks said:
I don't know about this. Unless the guy gets associated with the same fraud/theft public opinion that Armstrong gets, I think he is okay.

A dozen anonymous Internet crackpots who have the story more or less right is a hollow victory. Yuck.
and which one's still cashing in on a hotel and rider camps - at the same time doing motivational speeches to the juniors...
dunno how the sportswear line is going

He'll be fine for a few years more til he's just another "retired pro-rider"
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Aint no such thing as Karma. Hincapie has got off lightly into retirement where he is now free to remain an influence (probably not a good one) in the sport and make a very good living from it.

Something that should be automatic is dopers are not allowed to hold influential positions on teams, own teams, work for teams in WADA sports.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
You're splitting moral hairs when you try to distinguish Hincapie from the other Postie cheaters. Worse than Fraud (who also lead a team and doped to win a Tour)? Worse than Tugboat (who was also a loyal lieutenant, and ran his own fraud)? Worse than Levi (a blatant liar and doped team leader)?

Hincapie isn't even distinguishable from Zabriskie by all that much.

While Lance is professional cycling taken to the extreme, George is the Everyman of pro cycling. As far as I can tell, George is the living embodiment of Omertá. The fact that he was well rewarded for it tells me more about the bad character of the game than it tells me about the player.

There is a certain level of hypocrisy in fans who excoriate riders who live by the long-standing unwritten rules of the sport they love.
 
I guess George agreed to do a soft ball interview, and let his book speak for him instead of that fluff piece.

He wasn't apologetic ever. Just kept making the claim that it was part of the peloton and era of cycling and everybody did it.

Now, you can go to my website and book a nice stay at my new multi million dollar B&B, and I will even come out and ride with your group when you book multiple rooms/group event. Cha-ching.

I put a lot of this blame squarely on Tygart/USADA/USA Cycling.

These guys were so bent on getting Lance at any/all costs, they basically bent the procedural and standard rules on catching somebody, to get information on the 1 guy, in return for basically zero penalties.

George claimed he lost results. But his results weren't much ever. When yo don't actually win much, except when doped on EPO, it really didn't mean much. And the money/fame and contracts you got for the doping is what really matters.

A lot of good posts here guys on the past few pages. George and his buddies got away with it with no ramifications except a year of having to answer some questions periodically. Otherwise, money they earned, fame, way of life, commentator position "CVV" on NBC now with the two dufuses...ridiculous.

Crime/cheating does pay, they all have proven and shown that now that it is basically over the entire LA witch hunt.
 
Jul 24, 2009
572
0
0
zigmeister said:
He wasn't apologetic ever. Just kept making the claim that it was part of the peloton and era of cycling and everybody did it.
Without defending GH's choices, he obviously cheated and should own that, isn't he mostly correct about the pervasive doping at the time? From what we know now, it appears that most of the peloton was doping.

I don't know that I can disagree with the claim that cyclists at the time felt like they could either dope or give up on the dream of being successful professional cyclists at the highest level, which meant either go home or be resigned to struggling in the grupetto all the time. It's a false choice as one would think there was a third option available: stop following omertà and push to clean up the sport. But was doping pervasive in the peloton? Yes.
 
patrick767 said:
It's a false choice as one would think there was a third option available: stop following omertà and push to clean up the sport.
A reminder about why this wasn't an option. What happened to the few that did this? The result was personal attacks from all sides, disrepute, and loss of job in some cases. And I don't mean just Armstrong's actions.


I don't remember the name of the DS that plainly stated doping was required to be on a grand tour podium, so he did not make it a team objective. We later learned the UCI was *very* unhappy about that and tried to manufacture some sanctions as a result.


The pragmatic choice was to dope or go home.
 
Nov 2, 2013
121
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
A reminder about why this wasn't an option. What happened to the few that did this? The result was personal attacks from all sides, disrepute, and loss of job in some cases. And I don't mean just Armstrong's actions.

The pragmatic choice was to dope or go home.
No doubt by many accounts when EPO use was rampant due to no or little testing it would have been hard to hold down a job on the euro tour, however for the Americans going home could have been an alternative to keep enjoying ones sport and living a different sort of dream....albeit one I'm sure far poorer in pay.

http://http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/willett-there-was-an-anti-doping-community-in-the-usa-the-nineties

The "had to dope to follow my dreams" whines are such BS, if these guys said they doped follow the money I'd give them that.

I don't really fault any individual rider for not making a stink with the antidoping authorities of the past. Those that did have paid a high price. The only thing a rider really HAS responsibility to do is to abide by the rule of their sport. Those that did not dope did just that, those that doped did not and do not deserve any slack with their excuses.

Great PR move perpetrated by many of the postal gang getting the public to believe that they had no choice in the matter.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
A reminder about why this wasn't an option. What happened to the few that did this? The result was personal attacks from all sides, disrepute, and loss of job in some cases. And I don't mean just Armstrong's actions.


snipped.....

The pragmatic choice was to dope or go home.
Got that right...


After the worlds in Italy where I placed 22nd place, I was asked to race for a U-23 team in Italy as
I was considered the top racer of my generation by the Italians. This new team was a dream come
true, racing in Florence, Italy and getting to see the world and to do my passion which was racing
bicycles. I could not have been happier. But soon after arriving I realized that something was
incredibly wrong with the events that were taking place. The first night I was there the riders
were throwing needles at each other. All of my teammates were injecting themselves with
various products and vitamins. I was scared, immature and I did not know what to do. None of
my training at the United States Olympic Training Center had properly prepared me for the
pressures I was now facing in Italy to inject myself. There was not a number to call or a single
person to speak to about this. Later I would find out why this was the case. After the first season I
would witness and speak to my teammates openly about doping. They all admitted to me other
than 1 or 2 riders that they were using EPO and/or HGH. My managers all asked me to use these
products and I refused which upset them and caused them to treat me less fairly than my other
teammates. I was given a steel bicycle to race instead of an aluminum for example. I was not
paid, and the other riders were paid. I was shunned by my teammates at dinner for my lacklustre
performance while they were doping and winning. They would call me a loser. This all added up
to a mental mind game that would forever affect me.
Matt DeCanio.
 
Nov 23, 2013
366
0
0
One thing I've always wondered....if EVERYONE was doping how was "everyone" winning. They always make it sound like you just dope and win. Why didn't everyone win?
 
A reminder about why this wasn't an option. What happened to the few that did this? The result was personal attacks from all sides, disrepute, and loss of job in some cases. And I don't mean just Armstrong's actions.

I vaguely remember this as well. Seemed no riders/no one wanted any info to leak out, from anyone/ So if anyone said anything, they all shut up.

I don't remember the name of the DS that plainly stated doping was required to be on a grand tour podium, so he did not make it a team objective. We later learned the UCI was *very* unhappy about that and tried to manufacture some sanctions as a result.

LOL! And for McQuack to try to come out and claim they didn't know anything, and actually try downplaying UCI's role in any of it, is comical too.

Good post.
 
Energy Starr said:
One thing I've always wondered....if EVERYONE was doping how was "everyone" winning. They always make it sound like you just dope and win. Why didn't everyone win?

LOL! I've brought this up too a few places, and it's always been the same ol same ol: "Everyone doped, so what".

There are STILL some who believe Wonderboy has been wronged, and this is all still a witch hunt. Course, these people probably still believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and Santa, but still.
 
Energy Starr said:
One thing I've always wondered....if EVERYONE was doping how was "everyone" winning. They always make it sound like you just dope and win. Why didn't everyone win?

The interesting thing is you don't see a collective "a ha!" moment where interested people examine the UCI's role in permitting the fuel. There's no, "yeah. it's pretty true... What's going on at the UCI? In general, it's a bad tactic used to try to soften the PR image blow.

Look at it the other way. The PEDs means you could, at least, help your team's race leader in a more meaningful way. Of course, there is also the social pressure of "this is what pros do. Why don't you want to be a pro?" likely coming from all sides as well.
 
patrick767 said:
Without defending GH's choices, he obviously cheated and should own that, isn't he mostly correct about the pervasive doping at the time? From what we know now, it appears that most of the peloton was doping.

I don't know that I can disagree with the claim that cyclists at the time felt like they could either dope or give up on the dream of being successful professional cyclists at the highest level, which meant either go home or be resigned to struggling in the grupetto all the time. It's a false choice as one would think there was a third option available: stop following omertà and push to clean up the sport. But was doping pervasive in the peloton? Yes.
I agree completely with this notion. As many other posters of the subject in the thread. The theory that he had to dope to stay competitive and keep his job, although valid, is still a choice. He was just another guy willing to dope, no matter what the cost/consequence and moral decisions involved, to feed his ego.

Ultimately, he lost a lot of results, like Armstrong. And it is sad to claim the guy won anything clean and give him any credit whatsoever for anything he ever did. For if he never doped, he would never had the results, because he likely wouldn't be a pro cyclist, Armstrong and the likes would have run him out of the sport. He would have moved on to other things/career paths to make a living. Like many others decided to do. Yet, he didn't. He doped, and was financially rewarded for that decision. Just like the other guys in the US who got off basically "clean". Now George still reaps the rewards of his doping years. He gets a TV special like Lance and a book deal, all the while, builds a multi-million dollar lodge in Carolina where he can charge people to go ride with them and be treated like a pro (I assume the injections of EPO while staying there are included in the costs) and he makes money off this fame and history of doping.
 
Jul 24, 2009
572
0
0
westerner said:
No doubt by many accounts when EPO use was rampant due to no or little testing it would have been hard to hold down a job on the euro tour, however for the Americans going home could have been an alternative to keep enjoying ones sport and living a different sort of dream....albeit one I'm sure far poorer in pay.
But wouldn't many, if not most riders, see that as a big step down from the dream of winning or even being competitive in the big World Tour races? It's money, but it's more than that too. Substituting U.S. races for the dream of the Tour de France would be hard to swallow. As for money, they'd have a hard time even making enough to live on if they stayed home.

For a cyclist who was capable of World Tour level performance but was faced with doping or settling for something less than the WT, it had to be an incredibly tough choice.
 
Jul 24, 2009
572
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
A reminder about why this wasn't an option. What happened to the few that did this? The result was personal attacks from all sides, disrepute, and loss of job in some cases. And I don't mean just Armstrong's actions.

I don't remember the name of the DS that plainly stated doping was required to be on a grand tour podium, so he did not make it a team objective. We later learned the UCI was *very* unhappy about that and tried to manufacture some sanctions as a result.

The pragmatic choice was to dope or go home.
Point taken. I've read little to nothing about what happened to those who spoke out other than the ones who were targeted by Armstrong. While those who doped chose to cheat and those punished for it got what they deserved, I think it's useful to understand why so many riders felt like they were in a "dope or go home" situation. Their actions can be wrong and understandable at the same time.

Armstrong and others were eventually caught and punished. Unfortunately many others got away with it. The real injustice is that as a result of pervasive doping, those who didn't cheat couldn't compete.

Anyway, I'm sure the same points have been made and debated many times in this forum. Sorry to drag up this old thread yesterday, but I recently stumbled across Hincapie's book at the library and was curious about reactions here. It's a quick read, anyway. I'm going to find Tyler Hamilton's book next as people are saying it's much better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS