Jalabert positive for EPO in 1998 TDF

[blackcat]

One person who i would like to see on that list is Zabel. He admitted that he doped once. Likely that he doped his whole career.

The more riders that can be proven is part of the process to show the world the extent of the doping. Maybe then they will decide enough. But it aint gonna happen unless riders start naming who enabled the doping. Time to get the DS, the docs the feds, take the whole house of cards down and rebuild a stronger cleanER foundation for the sport.

and dave millar only doped twice.

dont give liers the time of day

 

[blackcat]

This reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

IMHO dealing with the past and creating a new future is only possible if you know the past. No matter how painful these revelations might be, they are necessary. We can not at this time see what the consequences of that revelation will be. But we have seen the consequences of hiding the past for the last 5-10? years. And IMHO it's not worth it.

Get reality out into the open, then take it from there.

As for use as justification. The everyone did it too defense explains, but does not justify. And as long as there was one clean rider in the race, even the explanatory value is somewhat diminished.

indeed. honesty and transparency is the only way.

 

[blackcat]

So Lance was right when he said nobody should care about what happened in France 15 years ago?

no, RR contests JaJa's partial confession.

just enough to justify and lie your way out. in a hypothetical scenario, a complete denial makes him a laughing stock (would make him). as it is, those who know what lies behind the veneer, know this is BS and it does no favours for the sport.

these ex riders, the retire to work on France 1 and France 2 and Eurosport, OLN, SBS etc, but they continue to spew talking points and misinformation, and never speak the truth and their culpability.

 

[Benotti69]

If Cookson was serious he would give all riders the opportunity to come forward to admit to their doping before retesting every sample they can possibly retest.

 

[blackcat]

I imagine even a completely righteous UCI would have hesitated to do that. Retesting old samples would probably have resulted in having to suspend virtually every single successful rider at the time.

Interesting to think how to deal with something like that without killing the sport at the pro level.

Me, now I'd say "just go ahead with it and let justice be done", but back then very few people would have supported such drastic measures.

no, that is a false dichotomy, an either-or dilemma.

if you retest all the old samples, it would be long held up in a civil court system at the CAS in Switzerland. the only good thing would be for the lawyers billable hours.

i am not offering an alternative, but the only options were not those two you offered.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Nope, pretty clear I did not write anything resembling that.

Anybody following the sport knows Jaja doped. They have known it for years. The way that the sport handles these issues points to the unprofessional culture of the sport. Never address it correctly, just spew some obfuscation and hope the fans forget of ignore the issue. the result is the issue never gets address and it drags on for years.

the correct thing to do would have been to retest the samples in 2000, as soon as the EPO test became available. The UCI did not do that, instead they buried it. The result is it explodes in our face 15 years later.

There will not be enough truth or reconciliation in a T and R session. Still too many riders and managers would prefer the status quo.

Until doping is criminalized uniformly and applied vigorously in most countries, the mathematical model still points to doping as worth the risk under the current penalties.

The practical alternative would be ongoing re-testing, with results published on a continuous basis....

And get doping control out of the UCI's hands. I think they selectively punished and selectively ignored certain riders.

 

[blackcat]

If Cookson was serious he would give all riders the opportunity to come forward to admit to their doping before retesting every sample they can possibly retest.

and revoke, what, 3 knighthoods in the UK?

better hurry. Froome and Cav are queuing up before Liz passes on whilst she still has the sword in her sheath.

 

[blackcat]

There will not be enough truth or reconciliation in a T and R session. Still too many riders and managers would prefer the status quo.

Until doping is criminalized uniformly and applied vigorously in most countries, the mathematical model still points to doping as worth the risk under the current penalties.

The practical alternative would be ongoing re-testing, with results published on a continuous basis....

And get doping control out of the UCI's hands. I think they selectively punished and selectively ignored certain riders.

cant see that making doping a crime is a role of gov't and law enforcment.

i dont agree with mrs rumsas in the clink or dave millar, or remi di gregorio. nor do i endorse moving dope across national borders (NOR within the borders). i dont have a solution sry

 

[Race Radio]

My reading comprehension is just fine thanks.
You said it was going to suck, and later, "because the sport was going to be dragged through the mud again"

In that case, bringing Armstrong to justice, by your definition, sucked, and definitely wasn't cause for high fives?

Consistency please...

It is always about lance with you isn't it?

Yes, it did suck. He should have been sanctioned in the 90's when he tested positive for testosterone 5 times, in 99 when he tested positive for Cortisone 4 times. in 2000 and 2001 when he tested positive for EPO and in 2004 for the retro tests for EPO. A perfect example of how not addressing the issue only makes the problem worse.

It is clear to most my concern here is not about a few dopers getting exposed but the craptastic way the sport goes about doing it. Nonsense from riders, teams, and the Feds.

 

[Race Radio]

This reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

IMHO dealing with the past and creating a new future is only possible if you know the past. No matter how painful these revelations might be, they are necessary. We can not at this time see what the consequences of that revelation will be. But we have seen the consequences of hiding the past for the last 5-10? years. And IMHO it's not worth it.

Get reality out into the open, then take it from there.

As for use as justification. The everyone did it too defense explains, but does not justify. And as long as there was one clean rider in the race, even the explanatory value is somewhat diminished.

Completely agree.....I would just prefer to see it done in a more effective way instead of the mess it has been for the last 20 years

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I can't wait to see the harsh warnings posted up in this thread soon.

Once you bring up Lance Armstrong and consistency then your about to get the troll label.

Anyhow dragging cycling through the mud over 15 year old results is not a bad thing in my opinion. Sure everyone following along knew the suspicious cyclist like Armstrong, Jaja, Ulle, etc.

Get it all out in the open. I'm not sure this Truth and Reconciliation would work but maybe give it a try.

There are many differences in those who doped at the top level back then. One similarity is that they all made money from it. One of the largest differences being that Armstrong made money like no one else and intimidated other cyclist. That tends to rub most the wrong way.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

cant see that making doping a crime is a role of gov't and law enforcment.

i dont agree with mrs rumsas in the clink or dave millar, or remi di gregorio. nor do i endorse moving dope across national borders (NOR within the borders). i dont have a solution sry

Doping is the 'relocation of wealth' from someone else's pocket to the dopers pocket. In business, which cycling is in the form of sport and entertainment, the relocation of wealth through misdeed is called theft. Indisputable.

 

[blackcat]

was his nickname cortico-neck or cortisone-neck rr?

when he came back from an offseason circa jan 96 of a tightend physique off-season in austin under the ferrari program

 

[blackcat]

Doping is the 'relocation of wealth' from someone else's pocket to the dopers pocket. In business, which cycling is in the form of sport and entertainment, the relocation of wealth through misdeed is called theft. Indisputable.

i do not dispute this argument. but i think the norms of the sport over its entire life, take precedence when defining cheating and fraud.

nb. i was once in your corner. this WAS my starting point a while back when i appreciated the reality of the sport. but that was pavlovian response to an unpalatable situation, which i could not reconcile. taking a step back, i evolved in my interpretation. my opinion.

yours may well be more valid

 

[Escarabajo]

I imagine even a completely righteous UCI would have hesitated to do that. Retesting old samples would probably have resulted in having to suspend virtually every single successful rider at the time.

Interesting to think how to deal with something like that without killing the sport at the pro level.

Me, now I'd say "just go ahead with it and let justice be done", but back then very few people would have supported such drastic measures.

+1. I would doubt that even the right people would have done it.

 

[andy1234]

It is always about lance with you isn't it?

Yes, it did suck. He should have been sanctioned in the 90's when he tested positive for testosterone 5 times, in 99 when he tested positive for Cortisone 4 times. in 2000 and 2001 when he tested positive for EPO and in 2004 for the retro tests for EPO. A perfect example of how not addressing the issue only makes the problem worse.

It is clear to most my concern here is not about a few dopers getting exposed but the craptastic way the sport goes about doing it. Nonsense from riders, teams, and the Feds.

No, it really isn't.

Moving on though, outing the riders from 98 is a good thing in the long run, because it will drive home the message that doping with products, currently untestable, might just come back to haunt you...
That thought will make some think twice, even if there is no immediate chance to be caught.

It will also give food for thought about what can be achieved clean, if the report states those that were tested and found not to be using EPO.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

was his nickname cortico-neck or cortisone-neck rr?

when he came back from an offseason circa jan 96 of a tightend physique off-season in austin under the ferrari program

There was a nick name in Tri's as well. Cortisone-neck ?

Not just the offseason in Austin what about that trip to southcarolina when he found the cycling gods.

 

[Galic Ho]

Doping is the 'relocation of wealth' from someone else's pocket to the dopers pocket. In business, which cycling is in the form of sport and entertainment, the relocation of wealth through misdeed is called theft. Indisputable.

Fraud. Not theft.

 

[ToreBear]

Completely agree.....I would just prefer to see it done in a more effective way instead of the mess it has been for the last 20 years

I think its a matter of short term pain vs long term gain. Those who could have done something didn't because of the short term pain. As time has gone on the short term pain becomes even more painful, while the ache has become more and more difficult to bear.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

IMHO dealing with the past and creating a new future is only possible if you know the past. No matter how painful these revelations might be, they are necessary. We can not at this time see what the consequences of that revelation will be. But we have seen the consequences of hiding the past for the last 5-10? years. And IMHO it's not worth it.

Get reality out into the open, then take it from there.

As for use as justification. The everyone did it too defense explains, but does not justify. And as long as there was one clean rider in the race, even the explanatory value is somewhat diminished.

Fair points - and I would agree with the principle.

However, while I have no problem releasing the info of 98 (& I expect 99 too) - most of those details are already out. That the majoity tested will be positive is expected.
But naming individuals riders does little, except detract that it was a systematic problem. Unless all the enablers are named too (Doctors, officials etc) then nothing has been learned.

 

[ToreBear]

Fair points - and I would agree with the principle.

However, while I have no problem releasing the info of 98 (& I expect 99 too) - most of those details are already out. That the majoity tested will be positive is expected.
But naming individuals riders does little, except detract that it was a systematic problem. Unless all the enablers are named too (Doctors, officials etc) then nothing has been learned.

I agree. Confessions like "I doped" would not be adequate. Confessions like "I doped, this is how I did it and this is who helped me" would.

As for detract from it's systemic nature, I disagree. The more are named the more difficult it is to isolate it as a problem on the individual level.

Bad apples = bad luck
Bad harvest = extremely bad luck
Several bad harvests = bad farming practices

hmm apple...

 

[andy1234]

Fair points - and I would agree with the principle.

However, while I have no problem releasing the info of 98 (& I expect 99 too) - most of those details are already out. That the majoity tested will be positive is expected.
But naming individuals riders does little, except detract that it was a systematic problem. Unless all the enablers are named too (Doctors, officials etc) then nothing has been learned.

You are looking at this as a learning opportunity, however there is more to be learned than just doping methods.
I have a feeling that the riders who have been tested, and found to have not taken EPO, won't be to concerned about the naming of individuals....

 

[gillan1969]

No, it really isn't.

Moving on though, outing the riders from 98 is a good thing in the long run, because it will drive home the message that doping with products, currently untestable, might just come back to haunt you...
That thought will make some think twice, even if there is no immediate chance to be caught.

It will also give food for thought about what can be achieved clean, if the report states those that were tested and found not to be using EPO.

The world has moved on and its different now falls over flat when assessed against Brunyels tweets regarding how it was basically Landis, and only Landis, that brought them down. i.. none of the other actors had it in them to expose the fraud....doesn't exactly fill you with confidence in the system then regarding anyone currently riding as its the same people policing the system as it was then.....
so without a pe**ed off Foyd policing world cycling, where is the disincentive not to get on the programme????

 

[ToreBear]

The world has moved on and its different now falls over flat when assessed against Brunyels tweets regarding how it was basically Landis, and only Landis, that brought them down. i.. none of the other actors had it in them to expose the fraud....doesn't exactly fill you with confidence in the system then regarding anyone currently riding as its the same people policing the system as it was then.....
so without a pe**ed off Foyd policing world cycling, where is the disincentive not to get on the programme????

The policing system is different now than it was. And remember Floyd as the winner of TDF got busted at the end of the back then era. Would that have happened in the 90s? doubt it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have a feeling that the riders who have been tested, and found to have not taken EPO, won't be to concerned about the naming of individuals....

While you are trying to be smart, it again misses the key issue.

Any rider tested who was clean will only be interested in having their name cleared and those riders should be recognised and applauded.