Is it good or bad for professional cycling to expose doping?

[issoisso]

If you remember, Manzano (he is only 31!) talked about how in a training camp for an edition of the Vuelta, that it included several trips to the local hospital with 7 or 8 riders. I mean come on. As for Contador, IIRC there have been a few arguements that the 'AC' was really Angel Casero.

From document 31, one of only two of the Puerto documents leaked to the public

En el reverso del documento 31 se localizan unas anotaciones manuscritas con el título “INDIVIDUALIZACIÓN” en el que se identifican a distintos corredores del equipo LIBERTY-SEGUROS WÜRTH por sus iniciales: R. H. (Roberto HERAS), M. S. (Marcos SERRANO), J. B. (Joseba BELOKI), I. G. (Igor GONZÁLEZ), A. V. (Ángel VICIOSO), J. J. (Jorg JAKSCHE), A. D. (Alan DAVIS), L. (sin identificar), A. C. (Alberto CONTADOR) .

Also note how A.C. appears in a list of Liberty Seguros riders from 2005. Casero never rode for Liberty Seguros, much less in 2005.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

I'm curious what you think his motives might be, if not to clear his conscience. He certainly hasn't reaped any benefits of his admission to my knowledge, and the peloton does not seem like a very friendly place for people who make those kind of admissions.

You're right he didn't benefit from it, but I wonder if he sensed that they would be caught, so he broke the news first in an effort to save himself and reduce any disciplinary action. Until the news broke, I wasn't and am still not too familiar with him, so I can't speak to his character. I wonder though if he knew to what extent it would go. It started with Manzano exposing doping within his team, that's it. Was he even aware that Fuentes had such a long reach? Perhaps he thought he thought the team would be disciplined, he would serve a year-2 year ban, and be back, but I'm just speculating at this point.

For the record I would challenge anyone to come up with a quote from Kohl stating that every rider who wins a race must be doping.

In German of course, he said, "Ohne Doping kannst du nicht gewinnen." I studied German for two years, and admittedly, I'm not fluent, but I can read it fairly well, and I translate that as, "Without doping you can't win." If I am incorrect in that translation, will somebody with more expertise in the language, please correct me.

 

[Tangled Tango]

Who can think of a rider who has spoken in support of people like Manzano, Kohl, or Jaksche?? I cannot think of anyone.

And what does that tell you?

 

[eigenvalu2]

support of whistle blowers

isnt it more complex than that? do the riders (ie the employees) really have the ability to come out and support the whistle blowers? does this happen in real life when someone comes out in a corporate environment? for anyone trying to make it in the extremely competitive world of cycling, where there are 10 guys waiting to take your spot, the pressure to toe the party line (ie the employers line) must be intense.

 

[ludwig]

In German of course, he said, "Ohne Doping kannst du nicht gewinnen." I studied German for two years, and admittedly, I'm not fluent, but I can read it fairly well, and I translate that as, "Without doping you can't win." If I am incorrect in that translation, will somebody with more expertise in the language, please correct me.

Well fair enough then.... The context here is he is talking about elite competition, and is offering his opinion. This opinion does seem to correspond to the facts on the ground...

I've been following cycling a long time and at this point I would be quite surprised to learn that any prominent pro rider is PED-free. That isn't an accusation...that's realism given the larger context of omerta, the testimony of whistleblowers, and the evidence of widespread doping.

The legitimate objection to Kohl's confession is not that he is speaking untruths, but that he is violating omerta and thus "harming" cycling. I can see not liking him speaking out, but seems absurd to accuse him of bending the truth.

 

[ludwig]

You're right he didn't benefit from it, but I wonder if he sensed that they would be caught, so he broke the news first in an effort to save himself and reduce any disciplinary action. Until the news broke, I wasn't and am still not too familiar with him, so I can't speak to his character. I wonder though if he knew to what extent it would go. It started with Manzano exposing doping within his team, that's it. Was he even aware that Fuentes had such a long reach? Perhaps he thought he thought the team would be disciplined, he would serve a year-2 year ban, and be back, but I'm just speculating at this point.

Jaksche, for example, completely underestimated omerta. He thought he could confess and come back and ride for the "clean team" T-Mobile. But naturally they found a way to shut him out.

But all in all the character assassination of whistle blowers is a pretty embarrassing phenomena for cycling--it's no coincidence that the resident trolls here try to derail any discussion of Jaksche/Kohl/Manzano.

If any team claims to be clean, the true test is whether anyone in their roster has a record of resisting omerta or standing up for clean cycling in any way. When you look at the Columbia and Garmin and CSC rosters, you see they are populated by omerta loyalists. It's all PR, but obviously they believe it's the only viable sponsorship model with so much negative publicity out there re. doping.

 

[BroDeal]

isnt it more complex than that? do the riders (ie the employees) really have the ability to come out and support the whistle blowers? does this happen in real life when someone comes out in a corporate environment? for anyone trying to make it in the extremely competitive world of cycling, where there are 10 guys waiting to take your spot, the pressure to toe the party line (ie the employers line) must be intense.

The individual riders talk to the press all the time. This is very different than a corporate environment. You would expect one of these so called clean riders like Millar to praise someone like Jaksche in an interview, but they do not.

You would expect a "clean" team like Garmin to pick up one or more of the whistleblowers. Not only would they get someone who has helped clean up the sport, they could get those riders at a rock bottom price compared to their talent. That last point says a lot about all the teams. A rider like Jaksche could be hired for peanuts because he has few other choices.

 

[Polish]

The individual riders talk to the press all the time. This is very different than a corporate environment. You would expect one of these so called clean riders like Millar to praise someone like Jaksche in an interview, but they do not.

You would expect a "clean" team like Garmin to pick up one or more of the whistleblowers. Not only would they get someone who has helped clean up the sport, they could get those riders at a rock bottom price compared to their talent. That last point says a lot about all the teams. A rider like Jaksche could be hired for peanuts because he has few other choices.

Why should Millar praise Jaksche? Why should Garmin, or anyone for that matter, hire Jaksche?

What if Jaksche was an Accountant? An Accountant who was embezzling funds. Probably for years. And only after getting caught starts pointing fingers at others in the Corporation - managers, HR, etc.

And Jaksche the accountant ain't no Harold Sydney Geneen for crying out loud. Why would ANYONE want to hire the guy?

 

[BigBoat]

The individual riders talk to the press all the time. This is very different than a corporate environment. You would expect one of these so called clean riders like Millar to praise someone like Jaksche in an interview, but they do not.

You would expect a "clean" team like Garmin to pick up one or more of the whistleblowers. Not only would they get someone who has helped clean up the sport, they could get those riders at a rock bottom price compared to their talent. That last point says a lot about all the teams. A rider like Jaksche could be hired for peanuts because he has few other choices.

Ba boom boom bang!

 

[BigBoat]

Why would ANYONE want to hire the guy?

Hiring and honest character like Jaksche...is bad polish? Does anybody believe Liberty was not doped up to their gills! Especially after all those blood bags were matched to rider DNA!

Current manager Riis says, "I used EPO, thats how it was then."

 

[Race Radio]

Why should Millar praise Jaksche? Why should Garmin, or anyone for that matter, hire Jaksche?

What if Jaksche was an Accountant? An Accountant who was embezzling funds. Probably for years. And only after getting caught starts pointing fingers at others in the Corporation - managers, HR, etc.

And Jaksche the accountant ain't no Harold Sydney Geneen for crying out loud. Why would ANYONE want to hire the guy?

Poor analogy.

The accountant that outs his superiors and co-workers get immunity while the rest of them go down due to his testimony. He then writes a book about it and Hollywood makes a movie. He then starts a consultancy that advises business on how to catch bad accountants.

 

[Polish]

Hiring and honest character like Jaksche...is bad polish? Does anybody believe Liberty was not doped up to their gills! Especially after all those blood bags were matched to rider DNA!

Current manager Riis says, "I used EPO, thats how it was then."

I am not saying it would be "bad" to hire Jaksche.
But I am also saying it is not bad if a team does not want to hire him.

Believe you me, if Jaksche had the talent of a Basso or Contador or Valverde -he would be re-hired in an instant I bet.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You just love contesting stuff that no one said, don't you? Nobody said that

Bassons was called a liar. Then Manzano was called a liar. Then Jaksche was called a liar. Then Sinkewitz was called a liar. Then Kohl was called a liar.

Simply because the average fan loves to keep his/her blinders on and pretend it can't possibly be as bad as everyone who speaks out shows it to be.[/B]
Name one thing any of those five people said that's been proven false.

What those guys you listed have said that the top guys are doping and you have said that point of which those riders have said hasn't been proven false. You are also saying that the average fan has the blinkers on and which means people choose to dodge the "facts" that these proven dopers have said.

 

[stephens]

Look no further than pseudo-anti-doping-advocate Jens Voigt (yes, again). When he's asked about convicted cheaters who upheld the Omerta by not naming names (such as Vino and Basso) he's all nice and apologetic saying they need to be welcomed back, they've paid for their mistaskes, everyone deserves a second chance....


Then he's asked about Sinkewitz, who did break the omerta, and suddenly he's snarling and angry, blabbing about how people like Sinkewitz are a cancer that's bringing down the sport and need to be erradicated.

Jens Voigt represents all that is good in cycling. I trust that he knows what is good for the sport and what isn't (because to me, what is good for Jens, is good for the sport and surely we ought to believe he knows what's in his own best interest). Pro cycling to me is about the riders: not the sponsors, not the organizers and all the others that make money off of the efforts of the riders.

So whatever my own personal views may or may not be regarding doping are secondary to the concept that the riders themselves must have the freedom to organize their sport how they see fit. If they want to get rid of doping, let them. If they want to live with the "everyone does it and it's no more dangerous to our bodies than all the other stupid things we do in search of glory and so let's just not talk about it," then that's their right as well and I will accept it.

 

[Escarabajo]

Jens Voigt represents all that is good in cycling. I trust that he knows what is good for the sport and what isn't (because to me, what is good for Jens, is good for the sport and surely we ought to believe he knows what's in his own best interest). Pro cycling to me is about the riders: not the sponsors, not the organizers and all the others that make money off of the efforts of the riders.

So whatever my own personal views may or may not be regarding doping are secondary to the concept that the riders themselves must have the freedom to organize their sport how they see fit. If they want to get rid of doping, let them. If they want to live with the "everyone does it and it's no more dangerous to our bodies than all the other stupid things we do in search of glory and so let's just not talk about it," then that's their right as well and I will accept it.

-1000000000000000000.

Horrible position to view the sport. I mean horrible. That's right let them risk their life starting at a very young age. Let the criminals start shooting people because what is good for them is good for everyone.

 

[MacRoadie]

Let the criminals start shooting people because what is good for them is good for everyone.

Exactly. Whatever chemicals the dopers CHOOSE to put in THEIR bodies just HAS to be good for the neo-pro whose DOESN'T want to dope.

Right?

 

[stephens]

The neo-pro can go do something else. If he wants to take part in a cycling series that differs from what exists, then he can start his own. He has no right to join in to an existing group, built up by the current participants and their predecessors, and expect it to now operate in some new way not wanted by the current participants. It's their game and nothing outside of that game should have the power to alter the game. Especially not those that only wish to profit financially from the efforts of the cyclists.

If/when the peloton decides that they agree that certain practices should be avoided because they are either "unfair" or "dangerous", then I will be with them in efforts to eliminate those practicies. Until that point, it's really none of my business. It's not causing me, nor any of you, any harm.

 

[timmers]

The neo-pro can go do something else. If he wants to take part in a cycling series that differs from what exists, then he can start his own. He has no right to join in to an existing group, built up by the current participants and their predecessors, and expect it to now operate in some new way not wanted by the current participants. It's their game and nothing outside of that game should have the power to alter the game. Especially not those that only wish to profit financially from the efforts of the cyclists.

If/when the peloton decides that they agree that certain practices should be avoided because they are either "unfair" or "dangerous", then I will be with them in efforts to eliminate those practicies. Until that point, it's really none of my business. It's not causing me, nor any of you, any harm.

Funnily enough it is not up to "The Peloton" to decide. All Protour riders have a UCI licence where they agree to the abide by the UCI regulations. These regulations are the same ones that I and young riders in my club also sign up to when we get our licences. The people who should leave UCI cycling are those who do not wish to follow the regulations. Unfortunately for some these may be riders who they like but who have cheated in the past or are cheating now.

 

[craig1985]

From document 31, one of only two of the Puerto documents leaked to the public



Also note how A.C. appears in a list of Liberty Seguros riders from 2005. Casero never rode for Liberty Seguros, much less in 2005.

I know about the Contador link, but I have also heard that it was Casero instead. Baffling (I have also seen it mentioned a few times on this forum as well). Either way Casero does appear in the documents According to this and thos. Which site is that article you posted from?

 

[stephens]

Funnily enough it is not up to "The Peloton" to decide. All Protour riders have a UCI licence where they agree to the abide by the UCI regulations. These regulations are the same ones that I and young riders in my club also sign up to when we get our licences. The people who should leave UCI cycling are those who do not wish to follow the regulations. Unfortunately for some these may be riders who they like but who have cheated in the past or are cheating now.

Of course this is technically true, that riders have "agreed" to follow certain rules and if they aren't, then they are technically cheating. But we humans break laws and rules every day. And once the rules are so ignored by so many participants, continuing to try to force the rule on the group who has so clearly expressed they aren't interested in that rule is a crazy thing to do. The UCI and all the other organizations and interests are just necessary evils. The riders do not exist because of the UCI: the UCI exists on the backs of the riders. For this reason, I must side with the riders first and foremost.

 

[craig1985]

The individual riders talk to the press all the time. This is very different than a corporate environment. You would expect one of these so called clean riders like Millar to praise someone like Jaksche in an interview, but they do not.

You would expect a "clean" team like Garmin to pick up one or more of the whistleblowers. Not only would they get someone who has helped clean up the sport, they could get those riders at a rock bottom price compared to their talent. That last point says a lot about all the teams. A rider like Jaksche could be hired for peanuts because he has few other choices.

You know it would be really interesting if a team manager of an a Pro Tour team, had their licence (and still had 3 or 4 more years to run), got their invites to the ASO and RSC races, and then signed up a whistleblower. It would be interesting in how the UCI or the big race organisers would react, because take away a team's PT licence or bar them from doing the big races without it ending up in court, and looking as though they have just enforced omerta.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The neo-pro can go do something else. If he wants to take part in a cycling series that differs from what exists, then he can start his own. He has no right to join in to an existing group, built up by the current participants and their predecessors, and expect it to now operate in some new way not wanted by the current participants. It's their game and nothing outside of that game should have the power to alter the game. Especially not those that only wish to profit financially from the efforts of the cyclists.

If/when the peloton decides that they agree that certain practices should be avoided because they are either "unfair" or "dangerous", then I will be with them in efforts to eliminate those practicies. Until that point, it's really none of my business. It's not causing me, nor any of you, any harm.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. You have far eclipsed the best efforts of BPC and Deadwrong.
Let's keep all the non corrupt politicians from running for office if they are not willing to play by the same rules as those who are in office now.
I really hope you are just trolling and you don't really believe this crap, because it would be tragic if anyone was really this stupid.

 

[issoisso]

I know about the Contador link, but I have also heard that it was Casero instead. Baffling (I have also seen it mentioned a few times on this forum as well). Either way Casero does appear in the documents According to this and thos.

Yes, Casero was named. I was pointing out that Contador is there, so no fanboy will be able to argue otherwise even if they want to

Which site is that article you posted from?

Not from a particular site. It was all over the news at the time.

 

[craig1985]

No wonder I could never find it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Stephens you are completely insane if you believe what you wrote. Either you are poking fun at a corrupt system, all for a laugh out of us, or you're completely mad. Does not the long list of riders I have mentioned several times who have wound up DEAD due to doping related issues mean a single thing to you?

Do you really believe in mob rule, to hell with a code of conduct, ethics, rules, or laws even?

In my father's lifetime some 50 million Germans and their democratically elected leader decided that six million Jews should die. By your demented logic, this could be deemed acceptable, as that's what the majority of people in that region wanted.