Italy: "After the storm, the Tsunami."

[MarkvW]

Come on.

I have no problem directly addressing your motives and character.

What, you think all of us landed on the Internet yesterday? I've been participating in Usenet discussions since I had a 2400 baud modem. You're going to have to do a better job if you'd like to disguise your trolling. Defending the indefensible isn't a new role, and it's one you're not really succeeding at. Whether or not this role garners you compensation remains to be seen.

What am I defending? I'm asserting that it is going to be very difficult for the investigators to get Ferrari. I'm asserting that Ferrari is probably not hands-on anymore.

Most importantly: I am asserting that a clever evil doctor would use doctor cut-outs based in countries with a strong doctor patient privilege as conduits for delivering the dope. That such a clever evil doctor would only advise regards training efforts and dope consumption and the advice would probably not be on the phone or in writing. That such a clever evil doctor would base himself in a country that has little interest in prosecuting people for merely advising. That such a clever evil doctor would probably base his client's advice on legal advice he has received.

I'm not asserting much more than that. If you want to fix on the other stuff (one of which I have already apologized for), just set your obsessive self upon it and keep on ranting!

I don't mind being attacked. I can refine my thinking following a good attack. But you are just name calling.

 

[D-Queued]

He came back to win the TdF with a team run by Bruyneel. If he couldn't win it prior to 98 what made him or anyone else think he was going to win it clean at 38? He knew Contador was doping because they were on the same team, so why would he ride it clean? There is no way he rode clean, not a snowflakes chance in hell.

No argument, only agreement from my end.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

anyone else as mystified where they get the energy to post.

not hands on anymore????? they have his hands on the money? how more hands on do people want?

 

[jimmypop]

What am I defending? I'm asserting that it is going to be very difficult for the investigators to get Ferrari. I'm asserting that Ferrari is probably not hands-on anymore.

bleh bleh bleh

tl;dr

Since we're all quite certain of what actually happened with Armstrong, Ferrari and a few others, the details we're hashing out here are for entertainment only.

There are still questions about other riders, but with Armstrong and those close to him there are few unanswered questions at this point.

 

[Francois the Postman]

This troll-calling is stopping here and now.

Mark is actually arguing why he sees it different than some here.

There is so much that is not in the public record, so unless you are in charge of the recent investigation and know exactly what is going on, anyone who "knows exactly what this all means" is stretching themselves too thin.

Everyone is assuming up to a point, so if someone assumes something in a different direction than yours, deal with it in another way than troll-calling.

If you suspect a troll, report them via the alert button, we'll look into it. If I had to rule who is trolling who here so far, some folk might end up pretty surprised. Don't tempt me.

 

[Dave_1]

dude, he says "the question is whether"...

it isn't a question buddy...he will NEVER admit the truth of it....the wishful thinking here is funny though

 

[hrotha]

it isn't a question buddy...he will NEVER admit the truth of it....the wishful thinking here is funny though

He will admit it if he reckons it'll benefit him more than keeping his mouth shut. Like every other person on earth, and unlike a villain from a comic.

 

[Dave_1]

He will admit it if he reckons it'll benefit him more than keeping his mouth shut. Like every other person on earth, and unlike a villain from a comic.

hrotha, what scenario do you foresee that would lead Michele Ferrari to admit? He won't set foot in the US, nor will Bruyneel, so it isn't clear how he would be put in a position to perjure himself

 

[Benotti69]

hrotha, what scenario do you foresee that would lead Michele Ferrari to admit? He won't set foot in the US, nor will Bruyneel, so it isn't clear how he would be put in a position to perjure himself

He doesn't need to be in the US to hang Armstrong. If the Italians want to know about payments from USA and from whom, that info can be passed on.

 

[jimmypop]

This troll-calling is stopping here and now.

Mark is actually arguing why he sees it different than some here.

There is so much that is not in the public record, so unless you are in charge of the recent investigation and know exactly what is going on, anyone who "knows exactly what this all means" is stretching themselves too thin.

Everyone is assuming up to a point, so if someone assumes something in a different direction than yours, deal with it in another way than troll-calling.

If you suspect a troll, report them via the alert button, we'll look into it. If I had to rule who is trolling who here so far, some folk might end up pretty surprised. Don't tempt me.

As I said in PM: I appreciate your position, but I don't care. The sport is a farce, and any discussion of a farce is (you guessed it!) - farcical.

To witness otherwise intelligent people bend logic to rationalize that their hero (Armstrong or other) - whose success has become inherently connected to their own egos - somehow won fair-and-square is beyond me.

We're spending so much time with our fingers in the dung of the dirty, inconsequential details that we often forget the sport is inherently broken from the top down. So, for example, while we while the hours away discussing the transport routes of a rider's B-sample, we happily ignore that said rider was seen to have doped by multiple witnesses. It baffles the mind; most of the discussions here are better suited to a forum on law than a forum on doping in cycling.

There's no sense in taking it seriously any more unless, as suggested previously, we burn it to the ground.

I gave up on the sport long ago; the smart amongst you should do so as well. I know my time is worth more, and I know the sport as it stands isn't worthy of the level of discussion we see here on a regular basis.

Let the circlejerk continue...

 

[JPM London]

As I said in PM: I appreciate your position, but I don't care. The sport is a farce, and any discussion of a farce is (you guessed it!) - farcical.

To witness otherwise intelligent people bend logic to rationalize that their hero (Armstrong or other) - whose success has become inherently connected to their own egos - somehow won fair-and-square is beyond me.

We're spending so much time with our fingers in the dung of the dirty, inconsequential details that we often forget the sport is inherently broken from the top down. So, for example, while we while the hours away discussing the transport routes of a rider's B-sample, we happily ignore that said rider was seen to have doped by multiple witnesses. It baffles the mind; most of the discussions here are better suited to a forum on law than a forum on doping in cycling.

There's no sense in taking it seriously any more unless, as suggested previously, we burn it to the ground.

I gave up on the sport long ago; the smart amongst you should do so as well. I know my time is worth more, and I know the sport as it stands isn't worthy of the level of discussion we see here on a regular basis.

Let the circlejerk continue...

Jimmypop - again you're making claims that are debatable. Which is fine, as long as you're willing to accept they are debatable and accept that others might have and put forth a differing view.

Replying to a mods request that you respect others and leave the mod'ing to the mods by a "I don't care" is blatant bird-flipping. Please re-think your behaviour in that direction. We are actually trying to make this place enjoyable for those who use it - you are right now working directly against this effort.

 

[jimmypop]

Jimmypop - again you're making claims that are debatable. Which is fine, as long as you're willing to accept they are debatable and accept that others might have and put forth a differing view.

Replying to a mods request that you respect others and leave the mod'ing to the mods by a "I don't care" is blatant bird-flipping. Please re-think your behaviour in that direction. We are actually trying to make this place enjoyable for those who use it - you are right now working directly against this effort.

People debate that the Earth is flat and that homeopathy works, too. It doesn't mean I need to give silly debates any credence.

What part of "I don't care" is difficult to grasp?

Seriously - it's a waste of time, folks. Move on with your lives. Competitive cycling - the sport we profess to love - has been dead for a long, long time. The best thing we can do at this point is to give it a proper eulogy and move on.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't mind being attacked. I can refine my thinking following a good attack. But you are just name calling.

In MarkvW's case, this seems true. The problem being there are so many other participants that don't yield to simple facts being used to rebut their unwarranted position that I think it's easy to lump MarkvW in with the other trolls. My estimation is MarkvW opinions have some more refining to go before some of his opinions are within the realm of possibility though...

 

[peloton]

People debate that the Earth is flat and that homeopathy works, too. It doesn't mean I need to give silly debates any credence.

What part of "I don't care" is difficult to grasp?

Seriously - it's a waste of time, folks. Move on with your lives. Competitive cycling - the sport we profess to love - has been dead for a long, long time. The best thing we can do at this point is to give it a proper eulogy and move on.

So, why are you posting on a cycling forum then?
(Sorry for taking this even more ott)

 

[python]

who was roberti taking about ?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-doping-investigator-speaks-out-at-award-ceremony

“One of the many people that have been interviewed in Padova was a real champion rider who had excited huge crowd with his riding,” Roberti said.
“But then after two hours of questioning and full confession, he started to cry and couldn’t stop: he’d realised the abyss he’d fallen into. He was a victim of the system, a person who was suffering but who deserved respect and help. Especially because he’d have to pay a high price, while those who had doped him, probably not.”

not basso as there was never a full confession…
diluca ? nah, that guy cries only when laughing cholerically
rebellin ? doubt it..

who ?

 

[L'arriviste]

who was roberti taking about ?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-doping-investigator-speaks-out-at-award-ceremony

not basso as there was never a full confession…
diluca ? nah, that guy cries only when laughing cholerically
rebellin ? doubt it..

who ?

I think this was more the Rebellin-Sella-Ricco-Petacchi-Cunego branch rather than the earlier Puerto branch, so it might just depend on who Roberti would characterise as a "real champion".

 

[rolfrae]

I think this was more the Rebellin-Sella-Ricco-Petacchi-Cunego branch rather than the earlier Puerto branch, so it might just depend on who Roberti would characterise as a "real champion".

Cunego probably.

 

[roundabout]

I doubt Cunego would be riding after making a full confession.

I'd say Sella, but ultimately it's not really important.

 

[L'arriviste]

I'd be the first to admit fishing a bit, but I also think it was Cunego and that, up until recently, he has maintained his anonymity.

He's a former Giro winner so that gives him special status. He's been at Lampre whenever the heat's been on.

He didn't do the Giro and flunked the Tour in 2008 when CERA was everywhere.
Modest Giro 2009 and no Tour. Great late season.
2010 was a year almost to forget.

This year so far, he's winning again. Maybe things are looking up (except for him being named in the current Italian investigation).

 

[roundabout]

Looking up as in back on the dope?

Or am I missing something?

 

[ergmonkey]

As I said in PM: I appreciate your position, but I don't care. The sport is a farce, and any discussion of a farce is (you guessed it!) - farcical.

To witness otherwise intelligent people bend logic to rationalize that their hero (Armstrong or other) - whose success has become inherently connected to their own egos - somehow won fair-and-square is beyond me.

We're spending so much time with our fingers in the dung of the dirty, inconsequential details that we often forget the sport is inherently broken from the top down. So, for example, while we while the hours away discussing the transport routes of a rider's B-sample, we happily ignore that said rider was seen to have doped by multiple witnesses. It baffles the mind; most of the discussions here are better suited to a forum on law than a forum on doping in cycling.

There's no sense in taking it seriously any more unless, as suggested previously, we burn it to the ground.

I gave up on the sport long ago; the smart amongst you should do so as well. I know my time is worth more, and I know the sport as it stands isn't worthy of the level of discussion we see here on a regular basis.

Let the circlejerk continue...

I can appreciate the sentiment, but for a guy who gave up on the sport long ago, sees no sense in taking it seriously, etc. you seem to be very up-to-date on even the most minute details of the sport.

Perhaps it's a little tougher to let go than your post would have us believe?

 

[ergmonkey]

Be careful: MarkvW may be a law student. If you know any law students, you'll understand that this means his grasp of the law is unimpeachable.

The trolling isn't even subtle any more, and it's apparent that the case against Armstrong and his enablers is hitting some sad saps where it hurts: their fanboy ego.

Not to worry. And as a lawyer, I've got no problems with you (or anyone else) lobbing attacks at lawyers and/or law students.

So, MarkvW, how about you demonstrate to the rest of us that you actually know this "most extremely precise legal sense"?

 

[L'arriviste]

Looking up as in back on the dope?

Or am I missing something?

Gotta love that clinic paranoia.

No, for once I just mean "Maybe things are looking up".

 

[MarkvW]

No Offense

Not to worry. And as a lawyer, I've got no problems with you (or anyone else) lobbing attacks at lawyers and/or law students.

So, MarkvW, how about you demonstrate to the rest of us that you actually know this "most extremely precise legal sense"?

Earlier in my posting string, I made an unqualified assertion that was way too broad and nonspecific (and, when read a second time, really garbled my own thoughts). I shouldn't have implied that Ferrari never doped anybody in the time frame that is barred by the limitations period. I also should have been more specific about what I meant by doping. By "doping," I meant furnishing or administering the dope. I didn't mean encouraging or "making referrals". Anyway, all this was in the context of "are they gonna get the guy?", rather than "did he do it?"

"The precise legal sense" was just my way of saying "be very literal when you read this." It was also an attempt to avoid any statement that might be construed as defamatory toward the doctor. I enjoy trashing dopers who have been caught, but I avoid trashing suspected dopers who have not been caught. This avoidance is my attempt at prudence (I mean this in the precise literal/legal sense). The Internet is not that anonymous and I don't want to furnish anyone grounds for a lawsuit. Since there is no significant reward for posting here, there is no cause for taking any risk.

The question of whether or not Ferrari participated in doping in any way does not interest me. I've formed my own opinion, and it would take a massive amount of new information to change it. I suspect it is the same with most other Clinic readers/posters. The question of "will they get him?" is a fun question that I like to discuss. The tortured nature of recent postings in this thread resulted from my imprecise language that got me tangled up in a boring debate on Ferrari's actual guilt or innocence.

 

[Race Radio]

I shouldn't have implied that Ferrari never doped anybody in the time frame that is barred by the limitations period. I also should have been more specific about what I meant by doping. By "doping," I meant furnishing or administering the dope. I didn't mean encouraging or "making referrals".
.

You don't make 15 million euros on referrals. There is something much bigger then just interval workouts and telling riders what to take and how to avoid testing positive. Considering that most riders pay in cash the fact that they are able trace 15 million in bank transfers is significant. It points to a much larger operation.