Jaksche says 2009 Tour winner will be a doper

[pmcg76]

Does anyone think there should be an induction course for cycling fans, in particular those Lance fans who believe there is no way he doped, reading material should consist of A Rough Ride by Paul Kimmage, written when Lance was a boy, Breaking the Chain by Willy Voet, written before Lance became a 7time Tour winner and Bad Blood by Jeremy Whittle to give a more modern prespective of our sport.

None of these books implicate Lance in doping but they should help people to have a bit more prespective instead of having this naive attitude that their hero or any other heroes never or would never dope.

On Jaksches comments, I recently had a conversation with a friend of a mid-ranking pro. The line seemed to be that the doping situation is better than it has been but most of the top guys are still on something. It is possible to be competitive in week long races or one-day races but the 3 week GTs are out of the reach of most non-dopers.

People will dismiss this as mere gossip but I spoke to this pro at the Giro last year and he told me the same thing face to face. He also was highly suspicious of Sella at the time, which proved to be correct. I guess this more or less backs up Jaksches & Kohls most recent statements. So not very good for cycling but not as negative as some people on here would have us believe.

 

[tifosa]

Not speaking out (as a follower of cycling) doesn't equate to sycophant. Fans may want change; fans may cry out for change. But it's the Omerta posse (current and former pros "in the know") who have the power. The Omerta posse exemplify those who are more interested in their job than in saving their sport. And as I said before (someplace on this forum), it doesn't seem to matter who or how Omerta is broken, because Omerta is self-healing. When someone breaks Omerta, the Omerta breaker is cast off, shunned, and vilified--and the Omerta posse is sealed once again for the doping to continue.

Cycling doesn't want to change. Its culture won't allow it.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Anyone who believes the bull**** that comes out of disgraced riders like Kohl and Jackse are stupid. These guys are profound liars and have cheated cycling fans like me and everyone else on this forum that they are clean and then try to put other people in the **** like they know everything. yes their are still cheaters out their but the doping programs set up are catching the cheats. I am sick and tired of listening to people who all they want to talk about is who's doping and how their doing it. BORING... Go follow another sport like lawn bowls if you are going to continue to ppublish such garbage on the net. Why do you even follow this sport then?

 

[luckyboy]

 

[BigBoat]

. Why do you even follow this sport then?

Why do people watch movies like The Godfather... Shows like Dog the Bounty Hunter, Cops, etc... Its for fun bro...Take it easy, take a deeep breath (I bet you really can get a good one), count to 10...Exhale bro..There you go.

 

[pmcg76]

Anyone who believes the bull**** that comes out of disgraced riders like Kohl and Jackse are stupid. These guys are profound liars and have cheated cycling fans like me and everyone else on this forum that they are clean and then try to put other people in the **** like they know everything.

What about the cheats who are never caught, claim they are clean and are very successful, yet dont admit to anything. Are they somehow better than guys like Kohl or Jaksche. The problem in cycling has always been guys like Paul Kimmage, Giles Delion and now people like Kohl and Jaksche are constantly dismissed as bitter cranks but when they are proved right so often, how can you dismiss them. What about Bjarne Riis, what is your opinion on him?

There is still a big doping problem in pro cycling, I believe things are improving but have a long way to go. Cycling has been one of my sports for over 20 years, if I gave up on cycling I would have to give up on all sports for they all have their problems. Cycling is still entertaining despite the problems.

 

[Anonymous]

do you have a link to it?

QUOTE]

for
Kohl see
http://interview.cyclingfever.com/index.html?_p=rider&id=323&country=10

for Jaksche
http://interview.cyclingfever.com/index.html?_p=rider&id=146&country=1

try Google spanish for l'Equipe interview.....

Unfortunately, some links to earlier interviews no longer exist, such as the
Jaksche one from sport1.de, "Markus Fothen hat mich enttäuscht", Fothen being the latest interview posted here
http://interview.cyclingfever.com/

Thanks!

I guess the L'Equipe article is just that short. I was expecting more. Much more. As you know he claims he did not saw what's in the last paragraph, but it doesn't matter becuase he offers no direct knowledge of what it says anyway. All he says is "I am convinced......"

And with all his accusations about how dirty the peloton is he offered nobody up. He doesn't have the goods on anyone. Talk is cheap.

I read the other interviews too.

In 2008 TdF a LOT of people thought his performance to be suspect. He was NOT among the pre race favorites. Same with his Giro. Same as Sella in the
giro.

Nobody was surprised when they got caught. Mules all of them.

Can you imagine Kohl talking to kids about not doping?

Jasksche solution? a truth commision.

and i found this intersting.

"Much help much.?

No, with the slogan "take all you can get" one can not get far. It is feeling, only a minimum to take and not to exaggerate. Heavy, hard, stiff muscles, which help you nothing. ?

Interesting interview if it was a month ago or a month after the tour. It's timing is perfectly obvious. It's all about the headline.

It sells soap.

 

[whiteboytrash]

[

Interesting interview if it was a month ago or a month after the tour. It's timing is perfectly obvious. It's all about the headline.

It sells soap.

....or maybe the journalists only phone them around July time in addition to saving "quotes" from interviews months earlier to print them at Tour time ?

Perhaps nobody wants to listen at any other time. Like you.

Noted that you've only reacted to Jorg's comments now and not the ones he made in March this year.

 

[Anonymous]

Bjarne Riis, what is your opinion on him?

He was an EPO doper. You can't get away with EPO any more. It was ten years ago. The main reason he came forward was to get the focus off of the past.

""First of all, I'm doing this to keep the focus on the work we are doing today that keeps cycling in the right perspective. The massive steps we have taken to fight doping and the ways in which we have secured that the team rests on the right and proper foundations."

That was over 2 years ago. More has been done since.

 

[Anonymous]

Above=Omerta propaganda 101.

This kind of thing might be remotely convincing if whistleblowers like Manzano and Jaksche hadn't been proven correct by facts and subsequent evidence that came to light.

They are NOT whistleblowers! Kohl is not a whistleblower!

Whistleblowers come forward with evidence not just accusations.

 

[Anonymous]

They are NOT whistleblowers! Kohl is not a whistleblower!

Whistleblowers come forward with evidence not just accusations.

Um, until someone provides "accusations" there will be no "evidence."

Your assumption is that the information he provides cannot be corroborated. See Freiberg for clarification of how the process works.

 

[Anonymous]

Word is he's now cooperating with the UCI. What do you suppose he's telling them? "I didn't really dope much, just did a few things all by myself with no help from others, and I'll give a press conference saying so"?

I am not an apologist for dopers.

If Kohl gives up good information that lead to riders or programs being suspended or banished, I'm all for it.

I just hope that if that's true, he has something to offer in regards to catching riders in the current testing system, like how to catch someone doping there own blood in the passport system, not just about the past. Yes, he says he took on blood too but that was as passport was ramping up. He tested for epo. Only and idiot would try epo now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They are NOT whistleblowers! Kohl is not a whistleblower!

Whistleblowers come forward with evidence not just accusations.

Jesús María Manzano Ruano (San Lorenzo de El Escorial, May 12, 1978) is a former Spanish professional road racing cyclist. He is famous as the whistleblower of systematic doping in Spanish cycling and his statements led the Guardia Civil to conduct the Operación Puerto investigation around the sport doctor Eufemiano Fuentes.

Wikipedia does not agree.... and we all know that Wiki is always correct

Manzano could have been dismissed as yet another bitter cyclist except the Guarda Civil decided to check out the practices of Dr. Fuentes.... and guess what they found!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

None of these books implicate Lance in doping but they should help people to have a bit more prespective instead of having this naive attitude that their hero or any other heroes never or would never dope..

Or just read From Lance to Landis. Or the Ashenden interview...

Anyone who believes the bull**** that comes out of disgraced riders like Kohl and Jackse are stupid...

Look, I get tired of the doping talk too. But as Dr. Maserati and BroDeal said, Jesus Manzano's confession helped lead to the Operation Puerto investigation, and great deal of what he said was later shown to be true. There's no doubt his confession helped clean up the sport, at least a little, and make thing more aware. Simeoni tried to do the same with Ferrari, but was only mildly successful. He did help expose Ferrari as a doping doctor, but because of Ferrari's powerful connections he couldn't get him stopped. While Jackshe and Kohl's confessions haven't lead to anything that big, time may tell.

Part of the problem is that when these guys confess, the governing bodies (usually UCI) shun them and ignore them, when they should be talking to them, pressing them to open up and name names, and explain in detail how they beat doping controls - this could be of great benefit to stopping doping in the future. While rumors are that the UCI is going to talk with Kohl, at first Pat McQuaid basically just cast him adrift and called him a bunch of names.

 

[pmcg76]

Or just read From Lance to Landis. Or the Ashenden interview...

Yeah, but too many people believe that Walsh has an agenda against somebody and is just making it up.

 

[Kennf1]

Kohl just got a contract.

What's that say about the all powerful "omerta"?

That's interesting, since Kohl retired from the sport, and received a two-year suspension anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but too many people believe that Walsh has an agenda against somebody and is just making it up.

...and some people believe the moon landing was faked and that professional wrestling is real..........dang

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Yeah, but too many people believe that Walsh has an agenda against somebody and is just making it up.

Some people, at least one who posts here, even thinks Ashenden has an agenda and is making things up.

 

[Anonymous]

That's interesting, since Kohl retired from the sport, and received a two-year suspension anyway.

Careful, you might hurt his feelings and he will turn you in to the forum police and tell you to fly to Ohio and say it to his face and that he is a big guy who will hurt you when you get there and that Simoni was chased down by Armstrong and that clearly doping is a minor problem to be avoided in any discussion and that......well, just take what he says with a cup of salt.

 

[rhubroma]

These guys aren't "whistleblowers". Generally, a whistleblower is an innocent insider with altruistic motives who divulges wrongdoing within an organization. These guys are more like dope dealers that got caught by the law and begin squealing on anyone and everyone, guilty or not, with the hope that somehow it will save their own skin (I've seen it first hand and its often full of BS). What? . . . we excoriate their deception when they were doping, then they get caught and begin the self serving squealing (truthful or not) on others and all of a sudden their word is reliable concrete proof of what they allege??

Its pathetic those here that quote Kohl and Jascke as some sort of experts on doping in cycling. These cheaters made self serving statements after they were caught and then you take their word as gospel with respect to what anyone else is doing re doping. Once they are caught they have a lot to gain by casting aspersions on everyone else . . . "wa wa waaaa they are all doping too! It's not just me! I'm not uniquely bad. I'm just like everyone else . . . . I got mud on my face let me sling mud on everyone else (guilty or not) so I am not the only one standing here looking like and a$$". If you quote Kohl or Jascke and use that as some sort of proof of doping YOU ARE AN IDIOT duped by fallacious logic.

But I still admire your athletic accomplishments.

Ok so doping doen't work, the milions of bucks poured into it are for nothing, those that get selected in the pro ranks are mostly weak, that's why the "few" have to resort to doping, the market doesn't exist, everything's not driven by money, it's all clean and pure, everything is pure, pure to the limit...life is a fairy tale.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok so doping doen't work, the milions of bucks poured into it are for nothing, those that get selected in the pro ranks are mostly weak, that's why the "few" have to resort to doping, the market doesn't exist, everything's not driven by money, it's all clean and pure, everything is pure, pure to the limit...life is a fairy tale.

Yea.....its a sad, sad world.........................someone better tell Dr Ferrari because the Hippocratic Oath may finally kick in for that guy because of all of this......

 

[byu123]

Some people, at least one who posts here, even thinks Ashenden has an agenda and is making things up.

Ashenden is not credible at all on the issue of whether Armstrong doped or not. He's just not. And its foolhardy and ignorant to believe otherwise.

Ashenden's approaches to testing the samples was very suspect and didn't follow basic labratory protocols. http://velovortmax.blogspot.com/2009/04/ashenden-interview-critique.html

Ashenden's agenda is further made clear when he fixates on a calculation error in another accomplished scientist's findings which DID NOT effect the accuracy of final conclusion. Why did Ashenden go out of his way to attack this study which is unrelated to his so called findings on the 1999 samples huh? Its patently obvious . . . because he as you say he clearly "has an agenda" and is thus bias and is therefore not credible on THIS ISSUE. He may be a great scientists but on this issue he has no credibility. He's nothing more than a hired gun trying to save a client millions of dollars. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/pdf_extract/105/3/1021

"The Australians (including Ashenden) had more than unbiased science in mind in their work." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html?pagewanted=print

Yea you got it right. Ashenden has an agenda.

"Alpe d'Huez" as the self proclaimed resident cycling expert here you never answered the question from me (this "newby" as you say) seeking greater light and knowledge from the "resident expert" such as you . . . .

I'll restate the question with a little more specificity.

If we believe all Joe Papp has to say, SHOULD'NT WE BELIEVE ALL the claims from similarly situated doping "whistleblowers" such as Matt Decanio? http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache..."pascal+richard"+epo&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Should we "Alpe d'Huez"? If Joe Papp is such an ideal voice on doping isn't Matt Decanio just as reliable?

You have all kinds of opinions on Landis who Joe Papp blew the "whistle" on. You malign Landis because Landis hasn't "come clean" and admitted in public he doped as Papp alleges. What about the dopers Decanio blew the whistle on and yet don't come forward admit their doping and even go so far as give up the ill gotten gains they obtained by competing as dopers. Shouldn't the "closet" dopers Decanio fingered also be ostracized and until they do come clean and give up their ill gotten gains, be regarded as totally hypocritical frauds whose opinions and views mean nothing???

I'm just dying to hear you opinion on this one . . . .

 

[ludwig]

I am not an apologist for dopers.

If Kohl gives up good information that lead to riders or programs being suspended or banished, I'm all for it.

I just hope that if that's true, he has something to offer in regards to catching riders in the current testing system, like how to catch someone doping there own blood in the passport system, not just about the past. Yes, he says he took on blood too but that was as passport was ramping up. He tested for epo. Only and idiot would try epo now.

Maybe we should keep a running count of the dumb things you say on this thread that you will eventually take back. CERA=a new form of EPO. So nobody would take CERA--wait wasn't that the drug of choice as recently as a year ago?

Give me a break dude. If they make a test for a form of EPO the doping docs just come up with a new undectectable form. And so the cycle goes on...=advantage doperz. Pro cycling is about money and doping to win is what makes that money.

As for Kohl, he gave up his manager. He gave up his supplier. He gave up other athletes that were on the scene? What more do you want from him? And why aren't you more critical of those athletes like Ricco who don't give up anybody yet easily get new contracts?

 

[elapid]

Ashenden is not credible at all on the issue of whether Armstrong doped or not. He's just not. And its foolhardy and ignorant to believe otherwise.

Ashenden's approaches to testing the samples was very suspect and didn't follow basic labratory protocols. http://velovortmax.blogspot.com/2009/04/ashenden-interview-critique.html

Ashenden's agenda is further made clear when he fixates on a calculation error in another accomplished scientist's findings which DID NOT effect the accuracy of final conclusion. Why did Ashenden go out of his way to attack this study which is unrelated to his so called findings on the 1999 samples huh? Its patently obvious . . . because he as you say he clearly "has an agenda" and is thus bias and is therefore not credible on THIS ISSUE. He may be a great scientists but on this issue he has no credibility. He's nothing more than a hired gun trying to save a client millions of dollars. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/pdf_extract/105/3/1021

"The Australians (including Ashenden) had more than unbiased science in mind in their work." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html?pagewanted=print

Yea you got it right. Ashenden has an agenda.

"Alpe d'Huez" as the self proclaimed resident cycling expert here you never answered the question from me (this "newby" as you say) seeking greater light and knowledge from the "resident expert" such as you . . . .

I'll restate the question with a little more specificity.

If we believe all Joe Papp has to say, SHOULD'NT WE BELIEVE ALL the claims from similarly situated doping "whistleblowers" such as Matt Decanio? http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache..."pascal+richard"+epo&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Should we "Alpe d'Huez"? If Joe Papp is such an ideal voice on doping isn't Matt Decanio just as reliable?

You have all kinds of opinions on Landis who Joe Papp blew the "whistle" on. You malign Landis because Landis hasn't "come clean" and admitted in public he doped as Papp alleges. What about the dopers Decanio blew the whistle on and yet don't come forward admit their doping and even go so far as give up the ill gotten gains they obtained by competing as dopers. Shouldn't the "closet" dopers Decanio fingered also be ostracized and until they do come clean and give up their ill gotten gains, be regarded as totally hypocritical frauds whose opinions and views mean nothing???

I'm just dying to hear you opinion on this one . . . .

What are you trying to say here? Armstrong didn't dope? The samples tested didn't follow protocol for a reason - they were testing a new test for EPO. Ashenden and co. were not trying to identify dopers, just validate the test. Armstrong was identified thanks to the sleuthing of an l'Equipe reporter. In regards to his criticisms of Walsh, these were valid. His work bordered on scientific fraud. As has been shown in other posts, his calculations are plain wrong and they do affect his results.

What about Papp v Decanio? What's your point?

 

[Anonymous]

Ashenden is not credible at all on the issue of whether Armstrong doped or not. He's just not. And its foolhardy and ignorant to believe otherwise.

Ashenden's approaches to testing the samples was very suspect and didn't follow basic labratory protocols. http://velovortmax.blogspot.com/2009/04/ashenden-interview-critique.html

Seriously, did you read that? Talk about supposition. Tell you what, show me where he proves there was an actual problem in the chain of custody. I quote "It is not impossible to conclude that LNDD let the 1999 Tour samples lie about the lab unprotected." and "Unfortunately, there is no absolute proof that the 1999 Tour samples were stored in a warm environment, but there is no proof that the samples were stored correctly either."

There is also no proof that monkeys fly out of peoples butts, but that does not mean they couldn't.

Ashenden's agenda is further made clear when he fixates on a calculation error in another accomplished scientist's findings which DID NOT effect the accuracy of final conclusion. Why did Ashenden go out of his way to attack this study which is unrelated to his so called findings on the 1999 samples huh? Its patently obvious . . . because he as you say he clearly "has an agenda" and is thus bias and is therefore not credible on THIS ISSUE. He may be a great scientists but on this issue he has no credibility. He's nothing more than a hired gun trying to save a client millions of dollars. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/pdf_extract/105/3/1021

He was one of the lead scientists in the development of the test, that is why he is a expert, and you are only making unsubstantiated claims on a cycling forum. Really, you would use that reasoning in court? Your law school must really need some more funding because the quality of instruction is woefully inadequate.

"The Australians (including Ashenden) had more than unbiased science in mind in their work." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html?pagewanted=print

OK, it is obvious that you did not read the article you posted. So are you saying that now there is not only a French conspiracy against Armstrong, but also an Australian one? See, Coyle was discredited according to the article, and he is the one trying to explain that Armstrong did it all because of a heart the size of a small plane.

Yea you got it right. Ashenden has an agenda.

Yea, he wants to produce reliable doping tests and do so in a scientifically proper manner. Shoot him!

"Alpe d'Huez" as the self proclaimed resident cycling expert here you never answered the question from me (this "newby" as you say) seeking greater light and knowledge from the "resident expert" such as you . . . .

I'll restate the question with a little more specificity.

If we believe all Joe Papp has to say, SHOULD'NT WE BELIEVE ALL the claims from similarly situated doping "whistleblowers" such as Matt Decanio? http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache..."pascal+richard"+epo&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Should we "Alpe d'Huez"? If Joe Papp is such an ideal voice on doping isn't Matt Decanio just as reliable?

You have all kinds of opinions on Landis who Joe Papp blew the "whistle" on. You malign Landis because Landis hasn't "come clean" and admitted in public he doped as Papp alleges. What about the dopers Decanio blew the whistle on and yet don't come forward admit their doping and even go so far as give up the ill gotten gains they obtained by competing as dopers. Shouldn't the "closet" dopers Decanio fingered also be ostracized and until they do come clean and give up their ill gotten gains, be regarded as totally hypocritical frauds whose opinions and views mean nothing???

I'm just dying to hear you opinion on this one . . . .

Yes, they should admit their doping. They won't, though Decanio was spot on about Leogrande.

I am sure that this obvious Google-a-thon you did to produce this incredibly uninformed post was fun for you, but you really missed some major points and the holes here are, well, pretty large. Seriously, what do you really do for a living?