Kristoff

[del1962]

What do people have on Kristoff, that he has performed well and rides for a team with some dubious characters, neither of these is proof of anything and in the light of anything more substantive it is all just idle speculation. So for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt and will assume he is clean with the caviat like with all riders I am willing to change my mind if something more substantive emerges

 

[sniper]

Posting a picture of him smiling when receiving a sensational bronze medal is definitely a proof of doping.

No, actually, he spoke out about Vinokourov straight afterwards, and he seemed pretty annoyed in the post-race interview, even if he tried to be diplomatic.

chom'on, maltiv, did i say it was proof?

my point was that, as far as i could tell, he didn't call out Vinokourov whereas he'd have had reasons to.
Now, as you seem to think he did call out Vino, i'd love to see a link to that.
Like you, i too think such quotes bear relevance and are of interest to the discussion, without being proof of anything of course.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Here Kristoffs speaks out against his OWN BOSS for defending Lance Armstrong (in 2012), saying that it's "ridiculous" to claim that there is no evidence against him.

http://www.bt.no/100Sport/sykkel/Kristoff-synes-sjefen-svarer-rart-208103_1.snd

At this time, most cyclists were still treating him like a God. Compare his answers with those of Bradley Wiggins or Geraint Thomas at the time, for example...

(Note that I'm not saying that being outspoken about doping is a proof that one is clean, but it helps).

good link.
my google translate suggests that indeed Kristoff makes some comparatively clever/credible remarks in that interview.
i agree that the fact that he said that already in 2012 adds value to the statements.

That said, Kristoff's definite breakthrough came in 2013.
Wiggins too was publicly antidoping, until, well, until he suddenly stopped being publicly antidoping which coincided with him getting major results on the road.

in any case, i have to admit that those are pretty credible statements from our friend Kristoff, and it's hard to find any procyclist (let alone from team Garmin and Sky) who said similar in that period. I hope he didn't do a Wiggins.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

What do people have on Kristoff, that he has performed well and rides for a team with some dubious characters, neither of these is proof of anything and in the light of anything more substantive it is all just idle speculation. So for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt and will assume he is clean with the caviat like with all riders I am willing to change my mind if something more substantive emerges

If we had proof of him doping, he'd already have been banned. Duh. You basically end up saying that you'll believe anyone to be clean until they are sanctioned.

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

What do people have on Kristoff, that he has performed well and rides for a team with some dubious characters, neither of these is proof of anything and in the light of anything more substantive it is all just idle speculation. So for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt and will assume he is clean with the caviat like with all riders I am willing to change my mind if something more substantive emerges

If we had proof of him doping, he'd already have been banned. Duh. You basically end up saying that you'll believe anyone to be clean until they are sanctioned.

Complete misrepresentation of my position, something more substantive might be visiting a ferrari training camp, named by another rider as having taken something illegal, redacted rider in USADA report etc, none of which might in themselves result in a sanction but remove the benefit of the doubt in my mind.

 

[Netserk]

So why were you talking about proof? Visiting a Ferrari training camp isn't proof of doping.

 

[del1962]

Your being pedantic again

 

[Netserk]

You're being wrong and can't handle it again.

 

[del1962]

No you are misrepresenting my position and i can't be bothered to have an argument with a self important know it all over semantics