Dear Wiggo said:Thanks Brad. Good to see you finally joined up. Good luck for the Giro, buddy!
Wrong Sky rider from 2012. More like Rogers.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Dear Wiggo said:Thanks Brad. Good to see you finally joined up. Good luck for the Giro, buddy!
JV1973 said:Ive never actually spoken to anyone "in real life" that is aware of the clinic. That said, when I outed Tommy D, it got a lot of attention! But it took 3-4 days after the outing for a journo to stumble upon it.
Older people (like most DS's) are not very internet-savvy.Cycle Chic said:Who are you trying to kid ?? the worlds largest Cycling Newspaper / Magazine and you say no journalists are aware of the Clinic !
Lance's trolls, Joe Papp, Sky's correlating PR announcements....all in the Clinic...
martinvickers said:Ireland's an island. England isn't.
Still, come to Ireland some time and say that in a Dublin pub. Make sure of your exits, mind.
Well, "British Cycling" ain't all that interested in (or relevant to) Irish cycling - any money made off the Giro goes to ireland, not GB, and not British Cycling - so the follow the money argument falls apart a bit.
that's the difference. Pretty bl**dy obvious you might think...
hhahhahahahahhahahahahhahahaah OMG. Sheer, deranged, macho genius!! AFL. Men in tight shorts. Camp. coooeeeee duckie throw us the ball.Galic Ho said:We'll send over the AFL allstars to say it to you. Brendan Fevola is well known for his lovely etiquette in Irish pubs on Irish soil. I know who will be piping down tough guy.
When the Irish remove McQuad get back to us. Till then how about throwing some support to Kimmmage? Or are you part of the McQuack fan base?
BTW England is on an Island as much as Ireland is. Ireland is the size of what? Tasmania? Real impressive. Real impressive. I'm sure you scared off the American with that post.
Galic Ho said:We'll send over the AFL allstars to say it to you. Brendan Fevola is well known for his lovely etiquette in Irish pubs on Irish soil. I know who will be piping down tough guy.
When the Irish remove McQuad get back to us. Till then how about throwing some support to Kimmmage? Or are you part of the McQuack fan base?
BTW England is on an Island as much as Ireland is. Ireland is the size of what? Tasmania? Real impressive. Real impressive. I'm sure you scared off the American with that post.
xcleigh said:hhahhahahahahhahahahahhahahaah OMG. Sheer, deranged, macho genius!! AFL. Men in tight shorts. Camp. coooeeeee duckie throw us the ball.
Galic Ho said:Ask the Irish why the Gaelic football cross AFL national comp stopped champ? Aussie AFL weaklings you're knocking started fights every year and thrashed the crap out of the Irish. But by all means big man, you talk your chances up. Anyone of those men would hit you in the head once and your jaw would break. They aren't cyclists. They have considerable upper body strength coupled with strong aerobic engines meaning they can run and tackle all day long. Of all the football codes in the world, the last guys you would pick a fight with and have a chance of winning is an AFL player. They have the strength, speed and stamina to fight hard continuously. No other code does. Soccer players lack upper body mass. Rugby, Union and NFL are all too slow and lack endurance. AFL has none of these weaknesses. They are monsters. They are the fittest football players no exception. But you keep big noting yourself, that will go far. I'd also suggest staying away from any southern Australian states. Talking like that won't end well for you.
Martinvickers...no you are right about Fevola. I was just suggesting that Irishmen in a bar are not a threat to anyone who can fight. Their reputation is diminished next to other nationalities. Take any Bostonian of Irish descent. Much better fighter. Your comment was to an American who could be of that stock. BTW I didn't see anyone step in and deal with Fevola did you?
Galic Ho said:Forgetting Northern Ireland? Part of Great Britain isn't it?
JV1973 said:Clinic argument 3: Sky is dirty, why don't you just say it!
My retort: While I have little love for team SKY, as I feel they have twisted the transfer market in a way that makes it difficult for smaller teams, such as myself, survive, my observations of them do not lead me to the absolute conclusion that Sky is doping. They may be, but my observations don't make me think it's a certainty. These observations include limited, but still significant, knowledge of their athletes individual physiological parameters. Large knowledge of the pay scale and desirability of their athletes on the transfer market (If Richie Porte is such a donkey, then how come other teams bid 800,000Euro on his contract?). Limited, but significant, knowledge of the vast resources they are able to spend on training camps, additional staffing, testing, and material. Additionally, my observations include their on road and observable data, such as climbing speed.
JV1973 said:Just got to thinking, maybe this is the best way to construct my thoughts:
Clinic argument one: The peloton is not any better off, in terms of doping, that it was in pervious years!
My argument: While I am fully aware cycling has a long way to go, my observations, which include: rider behavior, rumors, power outputs, speeds, tactical changes, blood values, testing regimes, and general insider discussion on the matter, would lead me to believe that currently the issue of doping is far less than when I was a professional cyclist.
Clinic argument: OK, but you are financially incentivized to say that!
My retort: When I stopped racing in europe, 2002, leaving a 315,000 Euro contract unpaid in 2003, I started a real estate company. Through sheer luck and my bubbly personality, by the end of 2004, we had 3 full time employees and annual commissions of $800,000(while I didn't get close to all of this, it was more than I made in cycling). This company was the original sponsor of the team, via our ads through 5280 magazine. Currently, I am in enrolled (and accepted) in a top 100 ranked International MBA program, in addition to running the team. My point, rather than comes across as a braggart, is this: while I love bike racing and would love to continue working in professional cycling, it is hardly the only nor the most lucrative option I have on the table. I can take it or leave it. Therefore, I do not think there is merit in the "yeah, but he gets paid to spew this crap!" argument.
Clinic argument 3: Sky is dirty, why don't you just say it!
My retort: While I have little love for team SKY, as I feel they have twisted the transfer market in a way that makes it difficult for smaller teams, such as myself, survive, my observations of them do not lead me to the absolute conclusion that Sky is doping. They may be, but my observations don't make me think it's a certainty. These observations include limited, but still significant, knowledge of their athletes individual physiological parameters. Large knowledge of the pay scale and desirability of their athletes on the transfer market (If Richie Porte is such a donkey, then how come other teams bid 800,000Euro on his contract?). Limited, but significant, knowledge of the vast resources they are able to spend on training camps, additional staffing, testing, and material. Additionally, my observations include their on road and observable data, such as climbing speed.
Clinic retort: OK, but you want Sky's big money in the sport, it lines your pockets!
Me: I don't care and no it doesn't. Although, i do respect the fact that bSkyb is willing to pour resources into cycling. They are not a "hobby" sponsorship. It's real marketing with purpose. Their marketing plan does not fall apart if they are a less winning team, it does fall apart if they have a doping scandal.
Clinic: How can you say things are better with Pat McQuaid still in charge?
My retort: While Pat has good and bad points, the events of recent years have neutered him of power over many items in cycling. I feel that the sport would be better suited with a new face in charge of the sport, but Pat doesn't worry me too much. My observations are that much of the more dictatorial control that the UCI presidency was originally allowed, has been removed.
Clinic: The bio passport doesn't work.
My retort: While it is far from perfect, has conflicts of interest, and is underfunded, my observation is that it has been an effective deterrent and has been effective at targeting athletes. This has lead to a reduction in speeds/power outputs, on the median, in events, such as mountain top finishes, that require o2 based energy. This reduction, while not symbolizing the end of doping and the "foolproof" nature of the bio passport, it does signify the reduced efficacy of o2 vector doping. And, for me, in the end if the doping has very reduced efficacy, enough to allow clean riders to win, then I will call it real and tangible progress. That is my opinion based on limited, but significant, observations.
Clinic: OK, but you have incentive to say that!
Me: see above.
Clinic: We know better than you!
Me: I'm giving you my opinion based on the observations I've made over the past 15 years. Those observations come from being a professional cyclist, running a small teams, running a large team, sitting on the Anti-Doping Funding Committee, being President of the teams' union (AIGCP), and sitting on the Professional Cycling Council, which serves as the board of directors for professional cycling. All of these positions I have recently let go, as I need to focus on my MBA studies. And arguing in the clinic.
Clinic: But you lie and sometimes your arguments don't make sense!
Me: I don't lie here and I am not being deceitful. I have absolutely no reason to do that here. I do not always have perfect arguments, I know. But that's probably one reason I come here. It makes me think about where my arguments are flawed, and if that flaw should make me change my opinion or just change my argument. I am not a greatly detail oriented person, by nature, so sometimes I brush over issues that need to be explored in greater detail. I am aware of that. But don't call it lying or being deceitful. I don't have any motive to do that and lying has proven to be a poor decision from every observation I've made in my life.
Clinic: How can the sport get cleaned up with all these ex-dopers running around?
Me: Thats a tough one. I know my actions and intentions have been noble, but I have no absolute way of proving that. My father, an attorney, used to say to me "how do you prove a man isn't beating his wife?".... There are ways to prove he is beating his wife, but prove he isn't? it's a more complex thing.
I can't speak for every ex-doper, but my opinion is, for the most part, the ones that get caught or admit, are much less dangerous than the ones that never did. And those of us that did get caught or admit keep a pretty close eye on those that never did.
JV
JV1973 said:Just got to thinking, maybe this is the best way to construct my thoughts:
Clinic retort: OK, but you want Sky's big money in the sport, it lines your pockets!
Me: I don't care and no it doesn't. Although, i do respect the fact that bSkyb is willing to pour resources into cycling. They are not a "hobby" sponsorship. It's real marketing with purpose. Their marketing plan does not fall apart if they are a less winning team, it does fall apart if they have a doping scandal.
Clinic: We know better than you!
Me: I'm giving you my opinion based on the observations I've made over the past 15 years. Those observations come from being a professional cyclist, running a small teams, running a large team, sitting on the Anti-Doping Funding Committee, being President of the teams' union (AIGCP), and sitting on the Professional Cycling Council, which serves as the board of directors for professional cycling. All of these positions I have recently let go, as I need to focus on my MBA studies. And arguing in the clinic.
Rebutle: It is very difficult to prove that someone isn't doping, and this is exactly why it is doable to defraud.Clinic: How can the sport get cleaned up with all these ex-dopers running around?
Me: Thats a tough one. I know my actions and intentions have been noble, but I have no absolute way of proving that. My father, an attorney, used to say to me "how do you prove a man isn't beating his wife?".... There are ways to prove he is beating his wife, but prove he isn't? it's a more complex thing.
I can't speak for every ex-doper, but my opinion is, for the most part, the ones that get caught or admit, are much less dangerous than the ones that never did. And those of us that did get caught or admit keep a pretty close eye on those that never did.
JV1973 said:enough to allow clean riders to win
Ferminal said:I think this is probably the biggest point of debate and reason for so much disagreement.
JV1973 said:...Me: Thats a tough one. I know my actions and intentions have been noble, but I have no absolute way of proving that. My father, an attorney, used to say to me "how do you prove a man isn't beating his wife?".... There are ways to prove he is beating his wife, but prove he isn't? it's a more complex thing.
I can't speak for every ex-doper, but my opinion is, for the most part, the ones that get caught or admit, are much less dangerous than the ones that never did. And those of us that did get caught or admit keep a pretty close eye on those that never did.
JV
skippy said:JV congrats on comment #3252 , it shows that you have put a lot of thought into the reply !
Why you would bother , after being bathed in Sewerage , by some during the past week , amazes me . Some of the derision sent your way was totally over the top and demonstrated a lack of their interlect .
Could it be that you think that those in the " Clinic " , could if they " Chose " , be a force that could influence " Change "?
BroDeal said:I have a question, which is the major issue I have with your approach. You are a strange cat. The number of people in the situation you were in who would walk away from a half mil a year contract is very small. You have repeatedly said that you can make more money elsewhere, so my impression is that once you finish your MBA, you will use that, your experience running Slipstream, and the contacts made while courting sponsors to land a lucrative corporate gig. What happens when you are gone?
You have constructed a doping policy based on a combination of altruism and secrecy, often displaying a contempt for giving details to schmucks like us and other fans who "don't need to know." Because of the precarious nature of a sport reliant on sponsorship, it is understandable to feel the the urge to keep doping details confined to organizations you have described as being capable of making a difference; but what happens when there are fewer altruists and the secrecy allows the old schoolers to go back to the methods that served them well when they were riders?
An unrelated observation I have is that the sport through the UCI has created a situation that may be more sordid than the free-for-all doping that preceeded it. It appears to me that the UCI has used its power to scapegoat a few riders as a means to goad the others into changing their behavior.
which is a point that should be acknowledge by all here. an appeal to this current MO of instrumental means for ends, is gonna be inverted in its base aims.The ends resemble the means. This sort of corruption will not end well.