Matt Cooke, did he go there?

[IzzyStradlin]

Re: Re:

(this is directed at whoever it is who's starting this anti-Matt campaign)

It's not an anti-Matt campaign. It is just irritating to see him demanding that everyone be 100% honest and transparent about their past, but he won't do so himself.

I could believe him riding clean, or never getting into blood stuff. He was a talented rider, if he was really into the hot sauce he would have gotten some Bergman-like results. He never did, could pull off very good rides every once in awhile, but nothing spectacular.

 

[Magic Matt]

I feel the need to address a few points that have been raised. I don't want to turn this into a back and forth or become a regular presence on here.

-I don't have links to Matt defending Phil Z. Dear Wiggo, do you have links to his outrage that his roommate, teammate and best friend got popped?
-I have no clue what "training camp" I referenced or where I referenced it.
-I stated it would be worth asking Joe Papp if Phil was "eating for two". It sounds like that is not the case. When I said it was worth asking, that's all I meant, I was not trying to insinuate that I knew the answer to the question, just that the question was worth asking.
-In no way did I state any "I was there" accusation. If I had one, I would have shared it with USADA at the time.

In general I have been as honest as possible and limited everything I stated to things I know to be fact or clearly establish that a statement is an opinion of my own. Stop trying to read deeper into my post, it doesn't have any deep hidden meanings or secret references (i.e. References to some training camp discussion, of which I'm not aware.) The one exception to that is my handle, which will be apparent to some.

My reasons for posting anonymously are stated very clearly in the first paragraph of my initial post.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

My reasons for posting anonymously are stated very clearly in the first paragraph of my initial post.

As they're well within your right.

This forum does not, nor will ever require you or anyone else to furnish any kind of proof as to real identities.

The members who comment to the contrary are sorely mistaken that this is any type of requirement to post an opinion.

Whether they choose to believe your comments or not is entirely up to them.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re:

-I don't have links to Matt defending Phil Z. Dear Wiggo, do you have links to his outrage that his roommate, teammate and best friend got popped?
-I have no clue what "training camp" I referenced or where I referenced it.
-I stated it would be worth asking Joe Papp if Phil was "eating for two". It sounds like that is not the case. When I said it was worth asking, that's all I meant, I was not trying to insinuate that I knew the answer to the question, just that the question was worth asking.
-In no way did I state any "I was there" accusation. If I had one, I would have shared it with USADA at the time.

With all due respect, sir, this is a classic "Cavuto". Youre basically adding a "?" after an accusation to avoid responsibility. "Im not saying he beats his wife, Im just asking an innocent question because its always possible he beats his wife, right?"

So in summary:
1. You dont have links to Matt defending anyone, for anything.
2. You suggesting "eating for two" was a total crapshoot, based on nothing.
3. Your "I was there" was actually "I heard from the dudes in the bunch", which translates to literal gossip. Cool.

I dont know if Matt is clean, full natty brah, or whatever...but until you can present any actual...evidence
Notice, I didnt say "proof"- just evidence.
BTW- not having links to Matt condemning his popped teammates means just about zero, since no one is claiming that he has been staunchly anti-doping and outspoken about it his whole life.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Hearsay is actually a type of evidence.

Magic Matt made his position and bias pretty clear. I don't see why you continue to rephrase his arguments to make it seem like he wrote something that he did not.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Hearsay is actually a type of evidence.

Magic Matt made his position and bias pretty clear. I don't see why you continue to rephrase his arguments to make it seem like he wrote something that he did not.

This place is hilarious, suddenly posters seemed to have developed a moral consciousness when it comes to accusations of people doping when it never previously stopped them. Most of the time, the clinic is blanket accusations, twisted takes on news/stories, cries of fraud or liar, blatant innuendo etc, all against those evil dopers, many of whom don't have a shred of so called evidence against them.

As for DW and all his arm-flapping. I don't see him criticising Bobbins or Digger when they bring their little bits of gossip or innuedno to the forum. I don't recall him defending the honour of Svein Tuft every time a certain poster insinuated he heard that Tuft was dirty or when Magnus Backstedt was rumoured to have been let go from Garmin for doping. Just the usual hypocritical BS.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

With all due respect, sir, this is a classic "Cavuto". Youre basically adding a "?" after an accusation to avoid responsibility. "Im not saying he beats his wife, Im just asking an innocent question because its always possible he beats his wife, right?"

So in summary:
1. You dont have links to Matt defending anyone, for anything.
2. You suggesting "eating for two" was a total crapshoot, based on nothing.
3. Your "I was there" was actually "I heard from the dudes in the bunch", which translates to literal gossip. Cool.

I dont know if Matt is clean, full natty brah, or whatever...but until you can present any actual...evidence
Notice, I didnt say "proof"- just evidence.
BTW- not having links to Matt condemning his popped teammates means just about zero, since no one is claiming that he has been staunchly anti-doping and outspoken about it his whole life.

That is exactly what Cooke is doing, which is why we have this thread. He "isn't there", he doesn't have links, and his tweets are based on nothing.

pmg76 puts it well. The JV thread discussed doping hearsay brought up by Matt Cooke. This thread is discussing doping hearsay about Matt Cooke hearsay brought up by others.

Why is JV accuseable but Cooke Not. Why is Gaimon accuseable but Cooke not? How come Matt tweets out something along the lines of "This (accusations against me) is why no one speaks out" and then he goes and slams others who are as verbal. I understand that individual posters are not the same characters throughout, but the general tone has shifted from militant truth to militant perspective.

I get the urge to reward and comfort those who are speaking out, but don't confuse a mandate for protecting of a safe space for honesty with protecting those who claim that mandate without living up to it.

And as far as this thread goes, Matt has not lived up to the standard he is hawkishly laying on others. (And as I said before, I don't mind some hypocrisy as long as its true... but if that fact of hypocrisy is then ignored in the emergence and acceptance of the situation, then inherent mistruths are accepted with it, which is a problem.)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

pmg76 puts it well. The JV thread discussed doping hearsay brought up by Matt Cooke. This thread is discussing doping hearsay about Matt Cooke hearsay brought up by others.

You are kidding, right? Tommy D and JV are what he discusses on twitter. You really going to say wah wah he has no evidence how about his doping huh huh?


Seriously?

gtfo.

Who does JV call out?
Who does Tommy D call out?

ffs.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bottom line: Cooke is calling JV and Danielson out. Refuting JV's shtty argument of "oh you didn't miss out on $$$."

Exactly what JV said to Pate, "some of those ex-dopers are why you got a job, Danny".

The attacks against Cooke only happened -- ONLY happened -- when he started calling JV out.

Is Cooke inconsistent? Yes.
Was Cooke potentially a doper back in the day? Yes.

Do either of those facts preclude him from now calling others out? For me: no fricken way. (any argument that it does preclude him from calling people out is ad hominem).
Why does it upset you (more strides, pmcg76, "magic" matt et al) so?

And what is the goal of attacking him in return? Do you seek solely to shut him up? Because if so, that's omerta, and I personally despise any attempt at omerta.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re:

And what is the goal of attacking him in return? Do you seek solely to shut him up? Because if so, that's omerta, and I personally despise any attempt at omerta.

Nobody is attacking Matt Cooke.

Personally I want him to talk more, because thus far he has revealed exactly zero new information about doping in cycling, yet he constantly claims to know much more.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

And what is the goal of attacking him in return? Do you seek solely to shut him up? Because if so, that's omerta, and I personally despise any attempt at omerta.

Nobody is attacking Matt Cooke.

Personally I want him to talk more, because thus far he has revealed exactly zero new information about doping in cycling, yet he constantly claims to know much more.

Oh I see. So posting about him in such a negative fashion that a mod feels it necessary to create his own thread should be seen as support of Matt Cooke?

Sorry, I completely missed that memo.

 

[djpbaltimore]

After reading some of these posts, I decided to visit his twitter page. He does have adorable dogs, so that is a point in his favor. But, I don't find his commentary to be particularly enlightening. He does bill himself as an 'always clean retired pro cyclist' FWIW. At one point he calls out JV as being childish, but I find many of his posts to be on the puerile, sophomoric side as well.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Hearsay is actually a type of evidence.

Magic Matt made his position and bias pretty clear. I don't see why you continue to rephrase his arguments to make it seem like he wrote something that he did not.

This place is hilarious, suddenly posters seemed to have developed a moral consciousness when it comes to accusations of people doping when it never previously stopped them. Most of the time, the clinic is blanket accusations, twisted takes on news/stories, cries of fraud or liar, blatant innuendo etc, all against those evil dopers, many of whom don't have a shred of so called evidence against them.

As for DW and all his arm-flapping. I don't see him criticising Bobbins or Digger when they bring their little bits of gossip or innuedno to the forum. I don't recall him defending the honour of Svein Tuft every time a certain poster insinuated he heard that Tuft was dirty or when Magnus Backstedt was rumoured to have been let go from Garmin for doping. Just the usual hypocritical BS.

agree with the first part of the bolded quote
the second part (no evidence) can be questioned looking at some performances and climbing times

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

As for DW and all his arm-flapping. I don't see him criticising Bobbins or Digger when they bring their little bits of gossip or innuedno to the forum. I don't recall him defending the honour of Svein Tuft every time a certain poster insinuated he heard that Tuft was dirty or when Magnus Backstedt was rumoured to have been let go from Garmin for doping. Just the usual hypocritical BS.

WHEN or IF Svein Tuft or Magnus Backstedt or ANYONE ELSE (whistleblowers) start calling other riders / dopers / ex-dopers / ex-riders / current team management out for DOPING, and taking the livelihood of clean riders away, I will support them.

If, as soon as they start doing that, numbnuts and neanderthals start attacking these whistleblowers, and casting aspersions as to the whistleblowers own cleanliness, I will rant at the people attacking the whistleblowers too.

Which is exactly what I have done here.

No one was calling Matt Cooke out UNTIL he started calling JV out.

No one.

Try and understand what I am saying before getting all uppity yeah?

If David Millar starts calling riders or team mgt out tomorrow, I will support him, too. I despise Millar. But I will support anything he says that adds to the conversation that doping is a problem remaining to be fixed.

We can't solve the doping problem whilst every man and his dog denies there is one. Any voice added to the chorus of, "doping is a problem" gets my support.

That's all this is. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't care who it is, or what they did or didn't do in the past. Their past is irrelevant.

While the UCI and WADA remain in denial about the doping problem in cycling and pro sport in general, nothing effective or useful will be done. Any dissenting voice helps change that. I will support those dissenting voices.

Consistently.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

pmg76 puts it well. The JV thread discussed doping hearsay brought up by Matt Cooke. This thread is discussing doping hearsay about Matt Cooke hearsay brought up by others.

You are kidding, right? Tommy D and JV are what he discusses on twitter. You really going to say wah wah he has no evidence how about his doping huh huh?

And as far as this thread goes, Matt has not lived up to the standard he is hawkishly laying on others. (And as I said before, I don't mind some hypocrisy as long as its true... but if that fact of hypocrisy is then ignored in the emergence and acceptance of the situation, then inherent mistruths are accepted with it, which is a problem.)

Inherent mistruths being what I replied to:

since no one is claiming that he has been staunchly anti-doping and outspoken about it his whole life.

Cooke is selling it that way in his "You and your dopers robbed me of an opportunity" tweets to JV/ex postal. And especially the.

And again, he is right. Dopers robbed him of opportunity. But he is not being genuine to that issue if he ignores that his teammate(s) did the same. He is not being genuine to an issue of "You (JV) hired dopers, how can you claim to be anti-doping" if he does not explain the situation with his own doping teammates. He is not being genuine to that issue if he doesn't openly discuss his own past, especially given the "You cheated your way into the spotlight" tone. He can choose either be open about his clean past or a hypocrite with a doping past, it doesn't matter to me. But by not choosing either, all of those who put any kind of value in what he puts into the JV/Garmin/Doping pot could be mislead, risking our own true understanding of the whole problem.

 

[Benotti69]

Dear Wiggo is the hammer.

Too man JV supporters attacking Cooke for Cooke's jibes at Vaughters.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Cooke is selling it that way in his "You and your dopers robbed me of an opportunity" tweets to JV/ex postal. And especially the.

And again, he is right. Dopers robbed him of opportunity. But he is not being genuine to that issue if he ignores that his teammate(s) did the same. He is not being genuine to an issue of "You (JV) hired dopers, how can you claim to be anti-doping" if he does not explain the situation with his own doping teammates. He is not being genuine to that issue if he doesn't openly discuss his own past, especially given the "You cheated your way into the spotlight" tone. He can choose either be open about his clean past or a hypocrite with a doping past, it doesn't matter to me. But by not choosing either, all of those who put any kind of value in what he puts into the JV/Garmin/Doping pot could be mislead, risking our own true understanding of the whole problem.

This is a fallacious argument.

I believe he is being genuine. You cannot read his mind and don't know him from a bar of soap, so you can only argue that he does not meet your standards of genuineness.

Yes, we can be mislead, but we're not, because both JV and Danielson are known dopers.

The only understanding we need is JV constantly claims
1. noone missed out on job opporunities
2. it's cleaner now, speeds are down, etc

and Cooke is calling this out as bullsht. Which it is. Please tell me you're not arguing differently?

Which teammates is he going to call out that are currently in action, perpetuating the removal of clean rider's income?

I don't know any but also don't care.

JV is far more than a remover of clean cyclist's income. He's a myth maker (it's cleaner now) and a bullsht artist extraordinaire. I'll support anyone calling his BS out.

To argue a whistleblower is not doing it right, is only admitting your own prejudices, and should be put aside as ad hominem.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'll also add: I did not dismiss the doping accusations or insinuations against Cooke, like many, many, many do here for their favourite riders.

Instead, I asked for links, googled the heck out of Cooke and went to the source directly. I got no links and Papp disagreed with the Phil Z "eating for two" suggestion.

Consider that before calling me hypocritical, yeah? I went looking for evidence of doping, rather than simply rallying around and denying the accusation outright.

Same as I do for any other rider.

Consistent.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Cooke is selling it that way in his "You and your dopers robbed me of an opportunity" tweets to JV/ex postal. And especially the.

And again, he is right. Dopers robbed him of opportunity. But he is not being genuine to that issue if he ignores that his teammate(s) did the same. He is not being genuine to an issue of "You (JV) hired dopers, how can you claim to be anti-doping" if he does not explain the situation with his own doping teammates. He is not being genuine to that issue if he doesn't openly discuss his own past, especially given the "You cheated your way into the spotlight" tone. He can choose either be open about his clean past or a hypocrite with a doping past, it doesn't matter to me. But by not choosing either, all of those who put any kind of value in what he puts into the JV/Garmin/Doping pot could be mislead, risking our own true understanding of the whole problem.

This is a fallacious argument.

I believe he is being genuine. You cannot read his mind and don't know him from a bar of soap, so you can only argue that he does not meet your standards of genuineness.

Yes, we can be mislead, but we're not, because both JV and Danielson are known dopers.

The only understanding we need is JV constantly claims
1. noone missed out on job opporunities
2. it's cleaner now, speeds are down, etc

and Cooke is calling this out as bullsht. Which it is. Please tell me you're not arguing differently?

Which teammates is he going to call out that are currently in action, perpetuating the removal of clean rider's income?

I don't know any but also don't care.

JV is far more than a remover of clean cyclist's income. He's a myth maker (it's cleaner now) and a bullsht artist extraordinaire. I'll support anyone calling his BS out.

To argue a whistleblower is not doing it right, is only admitting your own prejudices, and should be put aside as ad hominem.

But Cooke is not a whistleblower of any type. There is a world of difference in being anti-doping and anti- team x or rider z. The same as Walsh and Armstrong. Nobody ever attacked Cooke because he started attacking JV, but because he never said anything about doping beforehand. If he had been vocal like Gaimon or Will Routley (who also laid into JV/Garmin), then I would give him some kudos. So he retires and then suddenly zeroes in on JV/Garmin. Why focus on that one target when there is any number of people in your own past who cheated and denied you opportunities more than Garmin ever did. JV is such an easy target that is just reeks of grandstanding.

Lets start, Cooke has a former team-mate whose name I have seen linked to doping, allegedely on the Papp list, and who won any number of North American races Cooke participated in. Never sanctioned and has kept all their winnings and I believe is still making a living through cycling.

There is also a former Cooke team-mate who was part of the Armstrong-era US riders in Europe, rode for any number of dodgy teams in the US and Europe and has the type of results from Europe that would suggest he was doped. Maybe he was clean but I doubt it. This guy rode 10 seasons in Europe at the top level and then came back to the US to race. Never sanctioned or never even linked with scandals and was still an active rider this year and again has a business based on his name.

Another team-mate who was a regular winner on the NRC circuit before spending a good few seasons racing under one of the most controversial bosses in Europe. Came back to the US to race and still active I think.

Or the former team-mate who has a positive test in his past, won regularly on the NRC and is now at one of the biggest teams in Europe.

Or the former team-mate who suddenly pulled out a great season whilst regularly competing against Cooke, scoring himself a contract in Europe in the process.

If Cooke feels robbed and was truly ant-doping as opposed to attention-seeking, these are the guys he should be querying/criticising. He can criticise Garmin all he wants but as long as he plays that one tune, it will be nothing more than attention seeking. As for calling out people, there are riders who have called out people but have come in for loads of criticism in the clinic becasue they didn't call out rider A or team B. How is Cooke any different.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ok you don't get it, that's fine. You don't understand and possibly didn't even try to understand what I wrote. That's also fine.

Let's leave it at I completely disagree with your argument that whistleblowers or people calling out active riders and management have to do their calling out in the manner that you decree, like you are some absolute moral authority. That's some arrogance I can't condone.

There's a doping problem in cycling and sport.

Anyone adding their voice to that should be supported, and I will continue to support them.

I don't care about the rest.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Ok you don't get it, that's fine. You don't understand and possibly didn't even try to understand what I wrote. That's also fine.

Let's leave it at I completely disagree with your argument that whistleblowers or people calling out active riders and management have to do their calling out in the manner that you decree, like you are some absolute moral authority. That's some arrogance I can't condone.

There's a doping problem in cycling and sport.

Anyone adding their voice to that should be supported, and I will continue to support them.

I don't care about the rest.

I am pretty sure I get in fine. You don't care what their motives are as long as they call out people you don't like. I don't seem to recall you giving much praise to Kittel for calling out Sayer. Oh that's right, Kittel didn't call out the right people.

Antoine Vayer is a whistleblower who has very publically set questions marks against a lot of performances. He has also backed a numer of performances as being clean Peraud/Barguill/Martin. Based on Vayers assertations, it would appear that JVs cleaner cycling mantra was not a myth as you claim.

That seems to be JVs biggest sin yet one of the sports most well known whistleblowers backs that so-called myth. Strange times.

 

[Anaconda]

I have read through some of Matt's tweets and while his delivery at times leaves a bit to be desired, I think the messages that he is trying to put forward are extremely valid ones worth getting to the bottom of.

Regarding the real victims of doping one message is that it is the clean riders. The other view that USADA and the USPS gang have put forward the messaging that it was not cheating as everyone was doing it, and its the fault of the UCI not locking the doors tightly enough that they 'had' to cheat.

Matt's cries seem to rally against the ridiculousness of the current situation where there is an impression that the sport is working hard to clean up, while in the meantime those who lied and damaged it are remaining in control and profiting now from this 'clean' message. This is completely nuts. And people wonder why pros who played by the rules (this is a general statement, not related to just one rider) are rather bitter and cranky when they retire.

As athletes they would have known about doping, but I believe that unless they have a part of their brain switched off while racing to protect them from feeling victimized then they would quit immediately. While competing a clean athlete (with ambition) must believe hard work can overcome the cheaters or they would quit immediately. When they retire the switch turns the other way and its probably not a good situation mental health wise.

Cycling has not got a good track record re whistlerblowers. Given Matt's age, group of friends and where he lives I can appreciate why he might not spill all he knows. If he gets some good messages out there by "picking" on JV and a few other cheaters, without ruining his life/friendships I see that as a very realistic compromise and something contributing to the clean sport agenda.

The issues surrounding doping in sport are very complex no matter where one sits. The Matt's of the cycling world are not gonna have all the answers, but they do say things that are valid and deserve to be have as much of a stage and respect to promote their views, if not more so, as those who doped do. And that, at the moment, is not how it is.

I find many valid points being made in this interview, but this is hardly the SI, ESPN, or the NY Times is it?

http://www.crankpunk.com/blogs/cran...heir-names-if-they-had-never-taken-drugs.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Ok you don't get it, that's fine. You don't understand and possibly didn't even try to understand what I wrote. That's also fine.

Let's leave it at I completely disagree with your argument that whistleblowers or people calling out active riders and management have to do their calling out in the manner that you decree, like you are some absolute moral authority. That's some arrogance I can't condone.

There's a doping problem in cycling and sport.

Anyone adding their voice to that should be supported, and I will continue to support them.

I don't care about the rest.

I am pretty sure I get in fine. You don't care what their motives are as long as they call out people you don't like. I don't seem to recall you giving much praise to Kittel for calling out Sayer. Oh that's right, Kittel didn't call out the right people.

Antoine Vayer is a whistleblower who has very publically set questions marks against a lot of performances. He has also backed a numer of performances as being clean Peraud/Barguill/Martin. Based on Vayers assertations, it would appear that JVs cleaner cycling mantra was not a myth as you claim.

That seems to be JVs biggest sin yet one of the sports most well known whistleblowers backs that so-called myth. Strange times.

blah blah blah I get it blah blah strawman blah blah.

I don't dance to your tune, or anyone's tune, in case you didn't notice it. Whether that's who to support, when to support them, or who to believe when it comes to whether sport has a doping problem or not. Your ongoing belief that I should do what you say is noted and dismissed as fantasy.

I think for myself. I'm sorry that seems so terrible to you.

You can lead a person to water but damn they struggle when you try to drown them.

pmcg76 you are an obvious lover of JV and his message. That much is clear.

I don't hate anyone, and the person I feel the most dislike for is Millar.

Regardless, JV's words and actions are what I call into question time and time again. I get that you are personally hurt by that and come to his defense, like Jimmy with Sky and what not, but argue against my claims, not me the person, if you disagree. If you can. Good luck.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

Cooke is selling it that way in his "You and your dopers robbed me of an opportunity" tweets to JV/ex postal. And especially the.

And again, he is right. Dopers robbed him of opportunity. But he is not being genuine to that issue if he ignores that his teammate(s) did the same. He is not being genuine to an issue of "You (JV) hired dopers, how can you claim to be anti-doping" if he does not explain the situation with his own doping teammates. He is not being genuine to that issue if he doesn't openly discuss his own past, especially given the "You cheated your way into the spotlight" tone. He can choose either be open about his clean past or a hypocrite with a doping past, it doesn't matter to me. But by not choosing either, all of those who put any kind of value in what he puts into the JV/Garmin/Doping pot could be mislead, risking our own true understanding of the whole problem.

This is a fallacious argument.

I believe he is being genuine. You cannot read his mind and don't know him from a bar of soap, so you can only argue that he does not meet your standards of genuineness.

Yes, we can be mislead, but we're not, because both JV and Danielson are known dopers.

The only understanding we need is JV constantly claims
1. noone missed out on job opporunities
2. it's cleaner now, speeds are down, etc

and Cooke is calling this out as bullsht. Which it is. Please tell me you're not arguing differently?

Which teammates is he going to call out that are currently in action, perpetuating the removal of clean rider's income?

I don't know any but also don't care.

JV is far more than a remover of clean cyclist's income. He's a myth maker (it's cleaner now) and a bullsht artist extraordinaire. I'll support anyone calling his BS out.

To argue a whistleblower is not doing it right, is only admitting your own prejudices, and should be put aside as ad hominem.

But Cooke is not a whistleblower of any type. There is a world of difference in being anti-doping and anti- team x or rider z. The same as Walsh and Armstrong. Nobody ever attacked Cooke because he started attacking JV, but because he never said anything about doping beforehand. If he had been vocal like Gaimon or Will Routley (who also laid into JV/Garmin), then I would give him some kudos. So he retires and then suddenly zeroes in on JV/Garmin. Why focus on that one target when there is any number of people in your own past who cheated and denied you opportunities more than Garmin ever did. JV is such an easy target that is just reeks of grandstanding.

Lets start, Cooke has a former team-mate whose name I have seen linked to doping, allegedely on the Papp list, and who won any number of North American races Cooke participated in. Never sanctioned and has kept all their winnings and I believe is still making a living through cycling.

There is also a former Cooke team-mate who was part of the Armstrong-era US riders in Europe, rode for any number of dodgy teams in the US and Europe and has the type of results from Europe that would suggest he was doped. Maybe he was clean but I doubt it. This guy rode 10 seasons in Europe at the top level and then came back to the US to race. Never sanctioned or never even linked with scandals and was still an active rider this year and again has a business based on his name.

Another team-mate who was a regular winner on the NRC circuit before spending a good few seasons racing under one of the most controversial bosses in Europe. Came back to the US to race and still active I think.

Or the former team-mate who has a positive test in his past, won regularly on the NRC and is now at one of the biggest teams in Europe.

Or the former team-mate who suddenly pulled out a great season whilst regularly competing against Cooke, scoring himself a contract in Europe in the process.

If Cooke feels robbed and was truly ant-doping as opposed to attention-seeking, these are the guys he should be querying/criticising. He can criticise Garmin all he wants but as long as he plays that one tune, it will be nothing more than attention seeking. As for calling out people, there are riders who have called out people but have come in for loads of criticism in the clinic becasue they didn't call out rider A or team B. How is Cooke any different.

Id love to have a go at looking into the riders you reference here- who are they?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

DW, you're still missing the issue.

Let's trace all the way back to the first time Cooke was mentioned:

Gaimon won't ever fight for GC in P-Nice or Dauphine. he won't get there, JV does not need him to get there.
Gaimon does not even need to win races. he sells anyway.
cookies tweets, tattoo, velonews blog, strong legs as a domestique. that's perfect for JV/Cannondale
I wait for some tweets from Matthew Cooke during next season, to see what he says

This is what I'm talking about.

Or this, which kicked off this thread:

Personally, I like the guy and follow him on twitter.

I'm happy that there's an ex-rider out there that has the initiative to break omerta and speak out against his fellow (ex) riders doping practices.

Pro-Cycling needs anti-doping warriors such as Matt.

I never spoke about you, or your opinions, or the way you act on them. I spoke about the danger of accepting what Cooke says blindly. Here's what I said, just to clarify:

we have no way of knowing whether his pursuit, and the extra layer he is bringing as "insider", of Danielson/JV is based on anything he actually knows, instead of believes. And that matters

People put faith into Cooke's ideas as anti-doping dogma. Well, what if Cooke's tweets are motivated by vendetta instead? (We have some posters who think so.) Then that audience is mislead. That's why we need to understand what is behind Cooke. What he says about Gaimon is going to change at least one poster's opinions, and if he is actually motivated by a feud, then he's spread his ill will on the public.

Not everyone believes what they read on twitter, sure. Here was another post:

One of the values of Cooke is he is another rider who is not afraid to speak out.

By labeling Cooke as a rider who speaks out with no fear, it follows that he is laying everything he knows out into the public. After all, why would he hold anything back, right? The implication of that is when he doesn't say anything, he doesn't have info. The image of "not afraid to speak his truth" implies that what he does not talk about is clean, and not some dirty laundry to air. That his teammates or rivals or neighbor or whoever was squeaky clean and not worth talking about in his mission as anti-doping warrior.

But that's a minor impact.

I think this snippet sums up the thread:

And what is the goal of attacking him in return? Do you seek solely to shut him up? Because if so, that's omerta, and I personally despise any attempt at omerta.

Nobody is attacking Matt Cooke.

Personally I want him to talk more, because thus far he has revealed exactly zero new information about doping in cycling, yet he constantly claims to know much more.

Oh I see. So posting about him in such a negative fashion that a mod feels it necessary to create his own thread should be seen as support of Matt Cooke?

Sorry, I completely missed that memo.

No one was posting negatively about him. I'm certainly critical of his standard of openness, but no attacks. Why was this thread started? Magic Matt wrote about his possible doping and attention seeking behavior. That Moderator made a separate topic so the JV thread can be about JV, and then wrote this:

Matt Cooke seems to be a polarizing figure here in the clinic. Let's discuss him and his tweets here in this thread rather than clogging up the JV talks thread.

Personally, I like the guy and follow him on twitter.

I'm happy that there's an ex-rider out there that has the initiative to break omerta and speak out against his fellow (ex) riders doping practices.

Pro-Cycling needs anti-doping warriors such as Matt.

The rumblings and rumors in the JV thread about him being a doper at Navigators is distressing, and hopefully unsubstantiated.

Those 3rd and 4th lines are exactly why this thread has inflated. They're why I posted, and seemingly others. You've done well to investigate the doping angle, and pmg is rebutting. But we're still left with an almost-hero worship of someone who has done nothing to earn that position, to the point that any skepticism is seen as an attack.