I think Vaughters really wants to sign Contador:

[Parrot23]

NB: my comments are in regard to Vaughters only. Of course, there are big issues with UCI, di Luca, many others, but that's not what I'm talking about here or what this thread is about. There are bigger fish to fry, as you point out.

Web forums seem to be places where people engage in all sorts of gratuitous dramas and Shiite-like moralizing about things that are ultimately trivial--yet as if the world depended on them. At CN we're discussing who can pedal circles umpteen hours a day faster than someone else. A little shameful, really.

 

[scribe]

The UCI refuse to retest the 2008 Giro samples for CERA- now they have done a U turn and say they want to retest them,this is of course after the Carabinieri have the same samples and are about to test them.

What is the latest on this?

 

[blackcat]

You seem to be saying that everyone who disagrees with you is working for a corporation. Why would corporations bother hanging out on a cynical message board? Doesn't seem any point in wasting their time.

If there is a mainstream media orthodoxy, such as not denouncing athletes until they fail a proper test, then you are part of the Internet orthodoxy where one has to be working for a corporation if they don't take the ultra cynical line on everything.

You are the mirror of everything you hate. You have become a cliche - you are 'those guys on the internet'.

BPC, you are indeed correct, if I am wrong, I am a parody, and have committed a travesty on JV and some of his riders.

 

[Escarabajo]

JV,
...

However, thank you for the willingness to address people who in reality have little to no influence on what really happens in cycling. We are just fans and people who cycle because we love riding a bike for the most part, and what we want is to have some faith in professional cycling. You will have to understand if we are a bit reluctant to jump off the cliff of hope just yet.

+1.

Thanks JV for your feedback. It takes some guts to come in here to defend your riders. I wish other DS's did the same. I don't want to be called a "cycling hater" just because we believe there is doping in the peloton. It is not our fault. Doping scandals during the last 12 years have made of many of us to be cynics. History has showed us that every time when we start to believe that we have a clean sport another scandal shows up in the newspaper.

Thanks again and Good luck in La Vuelta.

 

[The Executioner]

Vaughters needs to stop acting like a wimp to Armstrong. Say what you say and mean what you mean. Everybody knows the past history of Armstrong/Ferrari.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

NB: my comments are in regard to Vaughters only. Of course, there are big issues with UCI, di Luca, many others, but that's not what I'm talking about here or what this thread is about. There are bigger fish to fry, as you point out.

Web forums seem to be places where people engage in all sorts of gratuitous dramas and Shiite-like moralizing about things that are ultimately trivial--yet as if the world depended on them. At CN we're discussing who can pedal circles umpteen hours a day faster than someone else. A little shameful, really.

My point is we - the cycling fans - cannot have faith in the system when the UCI is in charge of anti-doping.
This allows a lot of wriggle room for the teams and riders who wish to dope to continue to do so.

As regards Garmin and Wiggins - I just don't know. I do want to believe but like a spurnned lover I will take my time to build up that trust.
I do like a lot of things that I see and indeed hear about. However we have to be careful about taking information at face value and I think it is good that people on this forum do question that.
Also having JV here to counter argue is excellent - it is from these type of exchanges I can make an informed opinion.

Yes, at times here there are many things that get blown out of proportion and you have to have your BS radar on.
But there are many excellent and knowledgeable posters here who back up their opinions with links and the correct information - which is the way for the forum to be run, imo.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Yes, your aphorism on Aristotlian virtue brings us a "fair and balanced" fox news paradigm of journalism......A study of professional cycling of those past two decades lends my pov credence. You can dismiss it as cynicism, but that is NY Times orthodoxy. Counter orthodoxy at your peril, look at the shills and apparatchiks come out of the backblocks to toe the Armstrong and Vaughters line. I prefer to hold them to account, and be a critic if there is seeming contradictions.

The orthodoxy on this forum is that most pro cyclists dope, based on overwhelming evidence that doping was rife throughout at least the beginning of this decade. So in this forum, it's JV countering orthodoxy, 'at his peril'.....

This debate will be balanced when we see well informed people try to answer both the question 'has anything changed?', as well as the question 'what current evidence of doping is there?'.

At the moment, even a suggestion that things might have changed is primarily met with responses such as:
'Because of cycling's recent history, I'm sure you are lying. Shame on you.'
'I see you you decided to settle for cleaner not clean, you let me down.'
How can anyone respond to these kinds of statements?....am not....are to...did not...did to....

I note that JV, when faced with an actual question, has responded with further information. Thanks for the power info on Wiggins.

Sometimes, things really are worse than you want to believe. Just ask the labs that were being paid by Kohl's doc to find ways around testing positive. I am going to just throw a dart here and suggest that he isn't the only one...

Sometimes things aren't as bad as you think. I'm going to throw a dart here and say that even though Kohl went to great lengths to cover his doping, they still caught him in the end.

Before anyone wastes valuable napalm responding to this post, I'm not trying to suggest that the entire peloton is suddenly and miraculously pure as the driven snow. The point I'm trying to make is that if anyone actually want to know what's going on, it would pay to consider the information from both directions.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The orthodoxy on this forum is that most pro cyclists dope, based on overwhelming evidence that doping was rife throughout at least the beginning of this decade. So in this forum, it's JV countering orthodoxy, 'at his peril'.....

This debate will be balanced when we see well informed people try to answer both the question 'has anything changed?', as well as the question 'what current evidence of doping is there?'.

At the moment, even a suggestion that things might have changed is primarily met with responses such as:
'Because of cycling's recent history, I'm sure you are lying. Shame on you.'
'I see you you decided to settle for cleaner not clean, you let me down.'
How can anyone respond to these kinds of statements?....am not....are to...did not...did to....

I note that JV, when faced with an actual question, has responded with further information. Thanks for the power info on Wiggins.



Sometimes things aren't as bad as you think. I'm going to throw a dart here and say that even though Kohl went to great lengths to cover his doping, they still caught him in the end.

Before anyone wastes valuable napalm responding to this post, I'm not trying to suggest that the entire peloton is suddenly and miraculously pure as the driven snow. The point I'm trying to make is that if anyone actually want to know what's going on, it would pay to consider the information from both directions.

Probably the biggest 'myth' on this forum is that anyone who questions the status quo is coming from a viewpoint that everyone dopes!

Only one poster here says that - it doesn't get questioned as I believe it is just accepted as an amusing simplification.

Again - to try and guess how many riders do or do not dope is just wild speculation and is not something I involve myself in.
I believe after Operation Puerto things got cleaner - not because of some new moral outrage but as a consequence of Liberty Seguros pulling out mid season. But I also believe that the efforts made after 2006 were having a negative effect on attracting sponsors or investors in to cycling and that for the last year the progress has been curtailed significantly.

 

[blackcat]

The orthodoxy on this forum is that most pro cyclists dope, based on overwhelming evidence that doping was rife throughout at least the beginning of this decade. So in this forum, it's JV countering orthodoxy, 'at his peril'.....

but this forum is self selecting. Like the red state blue state phenomenon and the blogosphere. Constituents gravitate to the media sources that confirm their preconceived notion/perjudice.

So, you are correct, to a degree.

What you ignore, that the doping is so sophisticated, there can be no trail. Unfortunately, this denies a natural justice when you have individuals like me, confident in their belief that "I know it when I see it".

Yes, in the hypothetical clean peloton, there will still be records, great performances, and belief-defying efforts. So there is a bind.

But when a comprehensive medical program can give up to 20% improvement in power output, it sort of renders any chance to win the Tour clean, as moot. And a sophisticate program will defy the controls.

You make good points, and much needed points, otherwise the critics like me, lose their head, and it becomes a lynching.

I am for sober and rational analysis. But the Chris Boardman quote of "if it is too good to be true" is always at the forefront.

 

[blackcat]

Sometimes things aren't as bad as you think. I'm going to throw a dart here and say that even though Kohl went to great lengths to cover his doping, they still caught him in the end.

This is far from correct. He used cera, which was to show up on the MSGC assay. His intelligence was false.

There was noise that Columbia and CSC were all on cera also, and my mail from Vasseur, three times removed (heresay), said they all tested positive. Too much to believe, because I could not have reconciled riders like Lovqvist and Hansen charging.

The riders who are rigorous in avoiding the controls, will not take substances that will show up. Or they will duck off the radar until it is out of their system. Your point fails on this token.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You seem to be saying that everyone who disagrees with you is working for a corporation. Why would corporations bother hanging out on a cynical message board? Doesn't seem any point in wasting their time.

If there is a mainstream media orthodoxy, such as not denouncing athletes until they fail a proper test, then you are part of the Internet orthodoxy where one has to be working for a corporation if they don't take the ultra cynical line on everything.

You are the mirror of everything you hate. You have become a cliche - you are 'those guys on the internet'.

I agree 100%. Corporations would not hang out on message boards, cynical or otherwise. They would just hire a couple shills to do it for them.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Probably the biggest 'myth' on this forum is that anyone who questions the status quo is coming from a viewpoint that everyone dopes!

I actually said that "The orthodoxy on this forum is that most pro cyclists dope".

 

[pedaling squares]

A lot of good posts on this thread. Very nice to see a DS speak publicly when there is no compelling self-serving reason to do so. Much appreciated by this fan.

However, thank you for the willingness to address people who in reality have little to no influence on what really happens in cycling. We are just fans and people who cycle because we love riding a bike for the most part, and what we want is to have some faith in professional cycling. You will have to understand if we are a bit reluctant to jump off the cliff of hope just yet.

You know, you write very well when you are sober. That was well put.

You are the mirror of everything you hate. You have become a cliche - you are 'those guys on the internet'.

So do you. You make an excellent point here, although I think it applies to many of us at different times, and not your specific target.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I actually said that "The orthodoxy on this forum is that most pro cyclists dope".

Most - there are 800+ Pro Cyclists and of that less than 200 get to ride a race like the Tour - and even then there are only a handful of riders mentioned on these forums.

On this forum there are many including myself that believe there are quite a few riders still doping - again I will not speculate on what that number is.

But as long as there are riders like DiLuca, Astraloza, Landaluze, Serrano, Colom etc from this year alone we can asertain that there are many riders who still believe the risk/reward is still in their favour.

 

[blackcat]

I actually said that "The orthodoxy on this forum is that most pro cyclists dope".

qualifier you missed: *at the pointy end of the peloton. Plus, ALL, not most, who are on the top step of GTs dope. ALL. No exceptions.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

qualifier you missed: *at the pointy end of the peloton. Plus, ALL, not most, who are on the top step of GTs dope. ALL. No exceptions.

Most - there are 800+ Pro Cyclists and of that less than 200 get to ride a race like the Tour - and even then there are only a handful of riders mentioned on these forums.

Do these two posts neutralize each other?

Blackcat, fair point about the Kohl thing, not a good example.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do these two posts neutralize each other?

Blackcat, fair point about the Kohl thing, not a good example.

I think they compliment each other!

I am not quite as pessimistic as Blackcat - although if any rider on the podium gets busted I will not be shocked.

But it also should be remembered that many other riders who are not aspiring for GT success are under massive pressure from their teams and indeed themselves - so there may be many others to.

 

[blackcat]

Do these two posts neutralize each other?

Blackcat, fair point about the Kohl thing, not a good example.

no, don't cancel each other out.

Tour is a selective roster. It selects the best. But it is not doped writ large.

The Tour pointy end is endemic. The Tour and other top step of GT, is only achieved by a comprehensive medical program.

You hook up JV to a lie detector, and he will admit this.

Whenever someone says "you can win clean. Period." And adds the unctuous amplifier, "period" you know it is spin. Who uses the term "period"? Only guys like Mikey Ball and Mark Cuban. It is a term of emphasis that just harks as disingenuous and unctuous.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think they compliment each other!

I am not quite as pessimistic as Blackcat - although if any rider on the podium gets busted I will not be shocked.

But it also should be remembered that many other riders who are not aspiring for GT success are under massive pressure from their teams and indeed themselves - so there may be many others to.

I am never shocked when a top rider (or any other) is caught. Sickened, yes but never shocked. Am I a hopeful optomist or just retardedly gullible.Or am I a true fan who still can't just close my ears to the preponderance of evidence that suggests that something is just not right.

 

[blackcat]

US cyclists vs Casar/Moncoutie

I just want to place into evidence the careers of Moncoutie and Casar, versus Armstrong/Hamilton/Landis/Leipheimer/Vande Velde/Julich. The one piece of support, the Alpe d'Huez tt in 2004.

Moncoutie and Casar, touted as the two best talents of their generation, and pack fodder in the Tour. Moncoutie, when he had his head together, a top result on GC of 13th in 2002.

Moncoutie is one year older than Vande Velde. He actually had a decent result in the classement in the Vuelta last year. Casar is a year older than Wiggins. Heck, Wiggins could not even get selected for the FDJ and Credit Agricole Tour roster.

Now one result, is not noteworthy, especially a timetrial when different objectives influence riders' efforts, few are au bloc. But Moncoutie was a brilliant talent when he could ride in the peloton. How many clean riders, are ahead of him on this ride? None in my opinion. He outrode them all.

So my open question is, why do Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Leipheimer, Vande Velde and Julich outperform the best French talent of his generation for the classement. Why the preponderance of US classification riders, outperform Moncoutie with ease. Heck, add Wiggins for the purpose of this post. Moncoutie was 27 when he had his best result overall, and 29 with this timetrial result below.

We are told those US riders are all clean, we know it, because they tell us with their own words and mouths, even when they get popped.

Could not Vande Velde atleast glasscrank it to within a minute of Moncoutie? Surely his freakishly low lactate numbers could have minimised his losses, even when he was riding as a support to Beloki or IGG.

Stage 16 - July 21: Bourg d'Oisans - Alpe d'Huez ITT, 15.5 km
Results

1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 39.41 (23.44 km/h)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.01
3 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.41
4 Jose Azevedo (Por) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 1.45
5 Santos Gonzalez (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 2.11
6 Giuseppe Guerini (Ita) T-Mobile Team
7 Vladimir Karpets (Rus) Illes Balears - Banesto 2.15
8 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 2.23
9 David Moncoutié (Fra) Cofidis - Le Crédit Par Téléphone
10 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC 2.27
11 Stéphane Goubert (Fra) AG2R Prévoyance 2.33
12 Michael Rogers (Aus) Quick Step-Davitamon 2.34
13 José Enrique Gutierrez (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 3.04
14 Oscar Pereiro (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 3.06
15 Marcos Serrano Rodriguez (Spa) Liberty Seguros 3.09
16 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner 3.15
17 Sandy Casar (Fra) Fdjeux.com 3.19
18 Mikel Astarloza Chaurreau (Spa) AG2R Prévoyance 3.25
19 Juan Miguel Mercado (Spa) Quick Step-Davitamon
20 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Crédit Agricole
21 Floyd Landis (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 3.35
22 Axel Merckx (Bel) Lotto-Domo 3.40
23 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Saeco
24 Francisco Mancebo Pérez (Spa) Illes Balears - Banesto 3.41
25 Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Brioches La Boulangère 3.43
26 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Domina Vacanze 3.53
27 Pietro Caucchioli (Ita) Alessio-Bianchi 3.58
28 Laurent Brochard (Fra) AG2R Prévoyance 4.03
29 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank 4.06
30 Ludovic Martin (Fra) R.A.G.T. Semences - MG Rover 4.11
31 David Etxebarria (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi 4.16
32 Santiago Perez (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems
33 Anthony Charteau (Fra) Brioches La Boulangère 4.18
34 Pierrick Fedrigo (Fra) Crédit Agricole 4.20
35 Benjamin Noval (Spa) US Postal p/b Berry Floor
36 Kim Kirchen (Lux) Fassa Bortolo 4.27
37 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 4.28
38 Richard Virenque (Fra) Quick Step-Davitamon 4.30
39 Marius Sabaliauskas (Ltu) Saeco 4.33
40 Yuriy Krivtsov (Ukr) AG2R Prévoyance 4.36
41 Oscar Sevilla (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 4.40
42 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 4.42
43 Jérôme Pineau (Fra) Brioches La Boulangère 4.43
44 Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (Spa) Liberty Seguros 4.44
45 Santiago Botero (Col) T-Mobile Team 4.46
46 Iker Camaño (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi 4.47
47 Evgueni Petrov (Rus) Saeco 4.52
48 Manuel Beltran (Spa) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 4.54
49 Iker Flores (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi
50 Laurent Lefèvre (Fra) Brioches La Boulangère 4.57
51 Didier Rous (Fra) Brioches La Boulangère 4.58
52 George Hincapie (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 5.02
53 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 5.08
54 Jose Luis Rubiera (Spa) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 5.12
55 Paolo Bettini (Ita) Quick Step-Davitamon 5.14
56 José I.Gutierrez Palacios (Spa) Illes Balears - Banesto 5.17
57 Aitor Osa Eizaguirre (Spa) Illes Balears - Banesto 5.20
58 Unai Etxebarria (Ven) Euskaltel - Euskadi 5.25
59 Ronny Scholz (Ger) Gerolsteiner 5.29
60 Jens Voigt (Ger) Team CSC 5.34
61 Roberto Heras Hernandez (Spa) Liberty Seguros 5.38
62 Andrea Noè (Ita) Alessio-Bianchi
63 Stuart O'Grady (Aus) Cofidis - Le Crédit Par Téléphone
64 Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Quick Step-Davitamon 5.46
65 Mark Scanlon (Irl) AG2R Prévoyance
66 Iñigo Landaluze (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi 5.52
67 Michael Boogerd (Ned) Rabobank 5.53
68 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Fassa Bortolo 5.54
69 Danilo Hondo (Ger) Gerolsteiner 5.55
70 Jean-Cyril Robin (Fra) Fdjeux.com
71 Michele Bartoli (Ita) Team CSC 5.56
72 Erik Zabel (Ger) T-Mobile Team 6.09
73 Daniele Nardello (Ita) T-Mobile Team
74 Rik Verbrugghe (Bel) Lotto-Domo 6.11
75 Aitor Gonzalez Jimenez (Spa) Fassa Bortolo 6.13
76 Viatcheslav Ekimov (Rus) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 6.15
77 Egoi Martínez (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi
78 Rolf Aldag (Ger) T-Mobile Team
79 Martin Elmiger (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 6.23
80 Daniel Becke (Ger) Illes Balears - Banesto 6.24
81 Jörg Ludewig (Ger) Saeco 6.27
82 Sergei Ivanov (Rus) T-Mobile Team 6.30
83 Benoît Salmon (Fra) Crédit Agricole 6.31
84 Christian Vandevelde (USA) Liberty Seguros
85 Nicolas Portal (Fra) AG2R Prévoyance 6.34
86 Dariusz Baranowski (Pol) Liberty Seguros 6.35
87 Filippo Simeoni (Ita) Domina Vacanze
88 Thomas Voeckler (Fra) Brioches La Boulangère 6.36
89 Bert Grabsch (Ger) Phonak Hearing Systems 6.38
90 Marc Wauters (Bel) Rabobank 6.40
91 Patrice Halgand (Fra) Crédit Agricole
92 Koos Moerenhout (Ned) Lotto-Domo 6.44
93 Janek Tombak (Est) Cofidis - Le Crédit Par Téléphone 6.45
94 Isidro Nozal Vega (Spa) Liberty Seguros 6.50

 

[Digger]

'Whoever can't put two and two together as regards Professional cycling is beyong my help'. Ullrich

 

[Parrot23]

My point is we - the cycling fans - cannot have faith in the system when the UCI is in charge of anti-doping.
This allows a lot of wriggle room for the teams and riders who wish to dope to continue to do so.

Yes, UCI is in a substantial conflict of interest: promoting the sport and its image while at the same time policing it/the drug testing. One or other has to give at the margin in important cases (re. all the discretion we've seen).

Like medical associations in countries: they can become self-serving monopolies, an interest group promoting themselves more than the truth in some cases.

Ditto with teams engaging in self-testing, though it's an improvement and the record can be checked afterwards (re Wiggins' values were posted and the DS has engaged on them, and that is "exceptional"). Openness is always a good sign, like glasnost overturning the "omerta" and mass hypocrisies and lies of communism in former USSR (and we all know about the GDR and Russian doping, etc.; the two things go hand in hand)

Drug testing should be done by organizations with no connection to promoting the particular sport they are testing. Thought AFLD did a great job at last year's Tour.

 

[elapid]

Yes, UCI is in a substantial conflict of interest: promoting the sport and its image while at the same time policing it/the drug testing. One or other has to give at the margin in important cases (re. all the discretion we've seen).

Like medical associations in countries: they can become self-serving monopolies, an interest group promoting themselves more than the truth in some cases.

Ditto with teams engaging in self-testing, though it's an improvement and the record can be checked afterwards (re Wiggins' values were posted and the DS has engaged on them, and that is "exceptional"). Openness is always a good sign, like glasnost overturning the "omerta" and mass hypocrisies and lies of communism in former USSR (and we all know about the GDR and Russian doping, etc.; the two things go hand in hand)

Drug testing should be done by organizations with no connection to promoting the particular sport they are testing. Thought AFLD did a great job at last year's Tour.

+1. Summarizes my personal feelings on the subject to a tee.

 

[blackcat]

Yes, UCI is in a substantial conflict of interest: promoting the sport and its image while at the same time policing it/the drug testing. One or other has to give at the margin in important cases (re. all the discretion we've seen).

Like medical associations in countries: they can become self-serving monopolies, an interest group promoting themselves more than the truth in some cases.

Ditto with teams engaging in self-testing, though it's an improvement and the record can be checked afterwards (re Wiggins' values were posted and the DS has engaged on them, and that is "exceptional"). Openness is always a good sign, like glasnost overturning the "omerta" and mass hypocrisies and lies of communism in former USSR (and we all know about the GDR and Russian doping, etc.; the two things go hand in hand)

Drug testing should be done by organizations with no connection to promoting the particular sport they are testing. Thought AFLD did a great job at last year's Tour.

I don't know if they did a great job at the Tour last year. A pro from last year told me that Vasseur had mentioned to his colleague, that Saxo and Columbia were all positive to cera. But this never came out, except in numerous press sources, which suggested there were many more positives to come, indeed, mostly centred on Saxo and Columbia. I would think this information was not perfectly accurate, as I could not see Lovqvist and Hansen stumping up for the needle. If Lovqvist was charging, he would be with Andy Schleck at the top of the podium.

It was convenient, that those who got popped, were from Gerolsteiner, Saunier, and Barlo. Try to take down Cancellara, and all you get is ripping him out of Cali.

 

[Parrot23]

Okay, thanks for info.

There does seem to be a "too-big-to-fail" phenomenon. You can almost see the UCI thinking, "Man, this will wreck the sport...." It's their sport: they would be inhuman not to think this. These things are only natural in a conflict of interest.

Personally, it grates on me when second-stringers and sacrificial lambs are busted, their careers and finances ruined, when the top guys remain untouched. There are a lot of inequities and odd outcomes in these "wars on drugs".

I guess this partly explains the focus on Conti and the odd potential combo with Garmin.