Moncoutie

[DirtyWorks]

The problem with anecdotal evidence, however, is that it's anecdotal.....

Be clear on your definition. One public source is very weak inference. Many sources saying the same thing is strong inference.

In the case of Moncoutie we have multiple independent sources of anecdotal evidence all suggesting the same thing. One can infer that Moncoutie most likely didn't dope.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

[Mambo95]

Be clear on your definition. One public source is very weak inference. Many sources saying the same thing is strong inference.

In the case of Moncoutie we have multiple independent sources of anecdotal evidence all suggesting the same thing. One can infer that Moncoutie most likely didn't dope.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

DW, you're doing this all wrong. You're rather stupidly considering the evidence and then forming an opinion - that's a little bit too much like what 'scientists' do.

You need to develop 'belief'. In other words, form an opinion and then consider the evidence. Any evidence which fits your belief is good evidence. Any evidence that doesn't is bad evidence. It's really that simple. Black and white works. "Fundamentalism, for want of a better word, is good. Fundamentalism works."

 

[function]

Moncoutie and Contador, 2009 Dauphine, Ventoux MTF

Oh the conundrum! Commence discussion!

 

[VeloCity]

In general, team-mates know who is or not doping on their own team and indeed what is going on at a lot of other teams.

Its not just Gaumont, team-mates talk to each other so even if Gaumont seen nothing, then his team-mates must have seen nothing either or else the word would have spread. Teams generally dope together so its known who does what.

And yet here's Jaksche saying the exact opposite:

[Jaksche]explained that no one really knows who was working with Fuentes...None of his clients know about each other.Not even riders on the same team know if other riders are working with him.

Granted, that quote was specific to the context of riders working with Fuentes, but kind of contradicts the general notion that riders always know what other riders, including their teammates, are up to, doesn't it?

 

[ludwig]

But why are the riders who are saying "everybody's doped" more believable than the ones that say "most people doped but some guys didn't"? Anecdotal evidence is just that. It's not conclusive either way. So why dismiss some anecdotal evidence and accept other parts? Why actively point out anecdotal evidence as something to seek out when you wilfully ignore some anecdotal evidence?

An example.

Bernhard Kohl said "it's impossible to compete in the pro péloton without doping". Do you believe him?

He may be right, he may be wrong. The main reason I don't take his testimony at face value is that he, by his own admission, never actually tried to compete without doping, so how would he know how competitive you could be?

I believe the testimonies of Kohl, Manzano, Landis, Jaksche and others. I used to have some doubts, but for several reasons I've become convinced they are/were telling the truth.

1) The testimony of the whistle-blowers is consistent with the testimony of other whistle blowers.
2) The testimony of the whistle blowers is consistent with how the peloton behaves and the omerta attitude towards doping discussion.
3) Most of the riders and cycling authorities who attack/diss the whistle blowers have been discredited again and again. If David Millar or Pat McQuaid are really angry about some rider, that's a good sign they are flouting omerta and upsetting the cart.
4) If it was just one whistle-blower, it would be easier to doubt, but the presence of many whistle-blowers, in combination with the evidence from police investigations like Festina, Puerto, and Humanplasma--all this helps the whistle blower testimony ring true. The picture they paint of how doping goes on in the background is consistent with the actual events within the sport.

 

[ludwig]

And yet here's Jaksche saying the exact opposite:Granted, that quote was specific to the context of riders working with Fuentes, but kind of contradicts the general notion that riders always know what other riders, including their teammates, are up to, doesn't it?

Keep in mind though Jaksche is talking about how CSC did things (the connection b/w CSC and Fuentes is evident, even if Riis himself was not the actual middle man). Jaksche said at Liberty Seguros it was a team thing and a doctor would go around giving everyone injections.

Also keep in mind Jaksche took care not to name names, unlike say Floyd Landis.

 

[VeloCity]

Keep in mind though Jaksche is talking about how CSC did things (the connection b/w CSC and Fuentes is evident, even if Riis himself was not the actual middle man). Jaksche said at Liberty Seguros it was a team thing and a doctor would go around giving everyone injections.

Also keep in mind Jaksche took care not to name names, unlike say Floyd Landis.

Sure. But I was using it to highlight a general point - it seems to be "common knowledge" in this thread that Gaumont's word was reliable because he must have known what Moncoutie was doing simply because they were teammates, and riders always know one way or another what their teammates are doing. According to Jaksche - an ex-pro who's been there, done that - that's not always true.

 

[ludwig]

Sure. But I was using it to highlight a general point - it seems to be "common knowledge" in this thread that Gaumont's word was reliable because he must have known what Moncoutie was doing simply because they were teammates, and riders always know one way or another what their teammates are doing. According to Jaksche - an ex-pro who's been there, done that - that's not always true.

To me it's very much possible that Gaumont was protecting Moncoutie (for whatever reason) all along. Gaumont's statements are a strong piece of evidence in favor of Moncoutie being clean, but is by no means convincing in itself.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sure. But I was using it to highlight a general point - it seems to be "common knowledge" in this thread that Gaumont's word was reliable because he must have known what Moncoutie was doing simply because they were teammates, and riders always know one way or another what their teammates are doing. According to Jaksche - an ex-pro who's been there, done that - that's not always true.

It's time to concede that Moncoutie was not doping.

Try as you and Libertine Seguros might, it is reasonable to infer that Moncoutie was not doping. Just a couple of posts up, Ludwig did a good job restating the inferences, again.

 

[pmcg76]

And yet here's Jaksche saying the exact opposite:Granted, that quote was specific to the context of riders working with Fuentes, but kind of contradicts the general notion that riders always know what other riders, including their teammates, are up to, doesn't it?

I hope you noted that he said, they didnt know who each rider was working with, not that they didnt know they were doping. There is a suttle difference, I am sure Jaksche knew who was doping but might not have known who each rider was working with in terms of securing the dope.

Also taking note of what Ludwig said, Jaksche was at CSC for one season if I am not mistaken whilst spent several at ONCE/Liertine Seguros so he had a better knowledge of what was happening there.

Gaumont and Moncoutie were team-mates for seven years, thats a long time to not know what someone was doing in terms of doping or not to hear anything from anyone else either.

I would love to know for what reason Gaumont might have defended just Moncoutie as Ludwig suggested.

I also agree with Ludwig in that I believe Kohl, Manzano, Landis are telling the truth so I dont see why Gaumont would lie, especially about a clean rider.
I understand Ludwig's stance when you base your evidence on these testimonials but there are also teams with zero evidence of doping, i.e no positive tests, no outstanding results and no links with investigations/affairs.

I would include Europcar and its forerunners, Lfdjeux since 99 and Cofidis since 05 in this list. Yes, all French teams and maybe I am missing some links but their have been a few busts in France yet none of their riders seems to have been involved. Correct me if I am wrong of course.

I believe without doubt there has been and there is a lot of doping happening and my mantra is never believe in any rider 100% but based on the evidence that is out there, I put more faith in Moncoutie and some of the French teams than I do in most other riders or teams.

 

[ludwig]

It's time to concede that Moncoutie was not doping.

Try as you and Libertine Seguros might, it is reasonable to infer that Moncoutie was not doping. Just a couple of posts up, Ludwig did a good job restating the inferences, again.

Actually I'm of the opposite persuasion--to my mind the evidence indicates doping.

If there were lots of reliable evidence and testimony that Moncoutie is clean--yes that would work in his favor. But the problem is most of the sources that claim Moncoutie is clean are not credible--they have an interest in maintaining the mythos around Moncoutie. The only credible source in Moncoutie's favor (that I've seen, and imho) is Gaumount. That's just one source--not enough to dispel doubt given the evidence of widespread doping and the evidence that clean riders cannot compete with doped ones.

On the basis of what Gaumont has said I keep an open mind but there are many reasons he might have felt compelled to dissemble re. Moncoutie.

 

[hrotha]

That's just one source--not enough to dispel doubt given the evidence of widespread doping and the evidence that clean riders cannot compete with doped ones.

That's a big assumption. Jörg Jaksche said that as a 21-year-old clean neopro he was able to hang on with the favourites in a Paris-Nice mountain stage. That was in 1997. We simply don't know much of how possible it is to compete clean, we only have unreliable lab studies and anecdotal evidence which can be used both ways.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Moncoutie and Contador, 2009 Dauphine, Ventoux MTF

Oh the conundrum! Commence discussion!

Well if you are insinuating that Moncutie finishing ahead of Contador is a sign of doping that would be silly - because then 'we' would have to assume everyone finishing above a doper is also a doper.

So I assume you want us discuss the fact that the nearest spectator looks remarkably like "Weird Al" Yankovic.

 

[Von Mises]

I believe the testimonies of Kohl, Manzano, Landis, Jaksche and others. I used to have some doubts, but for several reasons I've become convinced they are/were telling the truth.

1) The testimony of the whistle-blowers is consistent with the testimony of other whistle blowers.

There is one more thing conistent. None of them (Kohl, Manzano, Landis, Jaksche) is from French teams. None of them is pointing fingers to French riders.

I am not saying that all French cyclist are clean or all cyclists from French teams are clean, but there are evidence that from ca 2004 they are mostly clean. Stories of Kohl, Manzano, Landis, Jaksche do not rebut it.

 

[Von Mises]

That's a big assumption. Jörg Jaksche said that as a 21-year-old clean neopro he was able to hang on with the favourites in a Paris-Nice mountain stage. That was in 1997. We simply don't know much of how possible it is to compete clean, we only have unreliable lab studies and anecdotal evidence which can be used both ways.

And if we have to trust another trustful source of ludwig - Landis - then by Landis testimony he was pretty competitive even when still riding clean, like top3 in Dauphine.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It's time to concede that Moncoutie was not doping.

Try as you and Libertine Seguros might, it is reasonable to infer that Moncoutie was not doping. Just a couple of posts up, Ludwig did a good job restating the inferences, again.

Hold up... I have been arguing that it is a reasonable assumption that Moncoutié isn't doping.

I was criticising those that would reject anecdotal evidence from Gaumont that suggests Moncoutié is clean, but are willing to accept anecdotal evidence from other pros that suggests everybody is doping. Picking and choosing their sources based on whether that source backs up their thoughts.

The problem with the doping question is that many people see it as black and white. Is it not possible for a rider to be clean most of the year but build up to a doped peak? Is it not possible for a rider to be clean for much of his career then be tempted to dope by lack of success and knowing others around him are doing it (for example the comments before 2009 by Mikel Astarloza about having tried everything he could to pick up a win... then coming back and winning a race the next year, only to test positive afterward - could this imply that Astarloza had been racing at least relatively clean but was swayed by frustration)? Is it not possible for a rider to have been doping at one point in their career but give it up?

I picked up the Kohl quotes because he's somebody who states quite definitively that you cannot compete at the top without doping - but he also admitted to having been consistently doped from espoir level onwards, so how would we know what his clean level was? Maybe Bernhard Kohl couldn't possibly have competed at the top without the dope, but what's to say that he's the yardstick of talent levels? Surely it's feasible that a rider more talented than Kohl could ride to a better clean level than him? Maybe it's not possible to get on the GC podium of a Grand Tour, but to win a secondary jersey almost unopposed and get into the top 20 with the aid of a couple of choice breakaways doesn't stretch the realms of possibility too much does it?

 

[hrotha]

(for example the comments before 2009 by Mikel Astarloza about having tried everything he could to pick up a win... then coming back and winning a race the next year, only to test positive afterward - could this imply that Astarloza had been racing at least relatively clean but was swayed by frustration)?

Ah, yes, Astarloza.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurKrSxHNsQ

If he was swayed by frustration, he must have been mighty frustrated because he was swayed all the way to the dark side with that press conference. "I'm innocent, it's all a conspiracy, there's no point in doping nowadays, you can't get away with it, I'll find the real culprits, I swear, oh hey look at these innocent-looking children, aren't they cute, anyway, it was a hypobaric chamber which increased my exogenus EPO levels. Agur."

 

[DirtyWorks]

Hold up... I have been arguing that it is a reasonable assumption that Moncoutié isn't doping.

I was criticising those that would reject anecdotal evidence from Gaumont that suggests Moncoutié is clean, but are willing to accept anecdotal evidence from other pros that suggests everybody is doping. Picking and choosing their sources based on whether that source backs up their thoughts.

Noted, sorry. Excellent point. I wish others would just concede and move on.

 

[ludwig]

And if we have to trust another trustful source of ludwig - Landis - then by Landis testimony he was pretty competitive even when still riding clean, like top3 in Dauphine.

Top 3 in the Dauphine clean? That would surprise me. You got a quote?

In the Kimmage interview, Landis says he started doping in 2002 (the year he made the Dauphine 2nd) so I think you got you facts wrong.

 

[Granville57]

And if we have to trust another trustful source of ludwig - Landis - then by Landis testimony he was pretty competitive even when still riding clean, like top3 in Dauphine.

Let's look at this.
Floyd came in second in 2002 behind Armstrong.
http://www.grenoblecycling.com/DauphineLibere2002.htm
That race began on June 9th, 2002.

According to Landis, he very first exposure to doping was in the form of testosterone patches. He claims his doping first began in 2002 in the "lead up to the TdF."

Kimmage: Okay, go back a little to the start of that first season with Postal and your first meeting with Lance. In a major piece with the Wall St Journal last July, you described the first training camp in December, 2001
<snip>
So from your first contact with him at that training camp in Austin, you are pretty quickly a member of the inner circle. And seven months later, during a pre-Tour training camp with Lance at St. Moritz, you dope for the first time?

Floyd: Yes.

Testosterone patches?

Floyd: Correct.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

So that would seem to put it at just after the Dauphine.
Hmmm...

 

[ludwig]

Let's look at this.
Floyd came in second in 2002 behind Armstrong.
http://www.grenoblecycling.com/DauphineLibere2002.htm
That race began on June 9th, 2002.

According to Landis, he very first exposure to doping was in the form of testosterone patches. He claims his doping first began in 2002 in the "lead up to the TdF."

So that would seem to put it at just after the Dauphine.
Hmmm...

They would train in St. Moritz in April/May. Landis as much as admits it in the interview (he talks about how having his best ever form helped him rationalize the doping), but Kimmage should have followed up with a direct question on the 2nd place at the Dauphine.

Either way, if Floyd acheived his 2nd at the Dauphine clean, and then started doping that June....well that would be something worth discussing would it not? Nothing said in the interview indicates that was the case.

 

[hrotha]

Wasn't the info about Landis being supposedly clean during that Dauphiné derived from his original emails rather than from the interview? I don't remember where I got that from, but I know it's been discussed here long before the Kimmage interview.

 

[function]

Well if you are insinuating that Moncutie finishing ahead of Contador is a sign of doping that would be silly - because then 'we' would have to assume everyone finishing above a doper is also a doper.

So I assume you want us discuss the fact that the nearest spectator looks remarkably like "Weird Al" Yankovic.

I would have to say the latter I'm of the opinion that finishing position in a race does not tell us anything with respects to whether someone is doped or clean. There are just too many variables in races that trying to set a demarcation line based on arbitrary finishing positions is pointless.

 

[blackcat]

That's a big assumption. Jörg Jaksche said that as a 21-year-old clean neopro he was able to hang on with the favourites in a Paris-Nice mountain stage. That was in 1997. We simply don't know much of how possible it is to compete clean, we only have unreliable lab studies and anecdotal evidence which can be used both ways.

actually, Jaksche has gone on record that he could not climb over a river bridge when Tour came along, without gear.

Holding a wheel on a single summit ascent, until you blow, is fundamentally different from multiple ascents and a mtn pass

 

[Von Mises]

They would train in St. Moritz in April/May. Landis as much as admits it in the interview (he talks about how having his best ever form helped him rationalize the doping), but Kimmage should have followed up with a direct question on the 2nd place at the Dauphine.

Either way, if Floyd acheived his 2nd at the Dauphine clean, and then started doping that June....well that would be something worth discussing would it not? Nothing said in the interview indicates that was the case.

This was from Landis e-mail. He told that during Dauphine Bruyneel lectured him how to use testosterone patches and after Dauphine Armstrong took him with helicopter to Switzerland where he got box of testosterone patches.

So, if you regard Landis trustworthy, then by his own words he came 2nd at Dauphine riding clean.