Moncoutie

[python]

.... ill-informed views on an event from 8 years ago.

+1

... you decided to dig yourself a bigger hole instead.

another
+1

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My guess is you didn't know who the person in the photo was. You just saw the word Cofidis and ploughed in with your ill-informed views on an event from 8 years ago.

Then, it true internet tradition, rather than admit your mistake, you decided to dig yourself a bigger hole instead.

Your 100% correct that I had no idea who this person was (Mancoutie) in the pictures.

The reason for that is that he is inconsequential for me. He does not do enough to get on the performace based dopers list and he does not do or say enough to be on the fight for clean cycling list. To bad you are angry about my opinion as I thought this was a place for discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why all that negativity towards Moncoutie and Basson?
Is it because a lot of posters in here give them the benefit of the doubt that they ride and rode clean?

your posts in this thread are bordering flickie/ballpolisher levels????[/QUOTE]

In regards to the Bassons issue… It is…Just like Skandar pointed out several months ago, Bassons has sat huddled in a corner for years without saying much of anything. Then Landis (an American) blows the lid off of all this doping issue and then Bassons finds the courage to speak out. It's weak and typical of his mindset to not stay and fight for what he supposedly believed in (clean cycling), while waiting or Landis to lead the way. Sounds like Normandy all over again.

??????? its an opinion not any type of personal attack.

 

[python]

To bad you are angry about my opinion as I thought this was a place for discussion.

i did not find mambo's measured and balanced response angry. he pinned your ill-informed opinion rather calmly and accurately just as most posters here.

it's you who keeps twisting and turning and lashing out at people. this discussion could have ended long ago if you admitted earlier that you did not know what you were talking about.

 

[VeloCity]

Why pick on Glenn? He's right - you guys really have no idea whether or not Moncoutie (or Bassons) is clean. I'd like to believe that he is, and the evidence seems to point that way, but you can say the same about a thousand riders who then got popped.

 

[python]

..... Sounds like Normandy all over again.

can you explain what has normady got to do with two riders who are considered clean by many ?

 

[hrotha]

Why pick on Glenn? He's right - you guys really have no idea whether or not Moncoutie (or Bassons) is clean. I'd like to believe that he is, and the evidence seems to point that way, but you can say the same about a thousand riders who then got popped.

Because he's stubbornly disregarding the evidence and saying crap like "Bassons only spoke out because Landis did" even though Bassons was writing newspaper articles about doping while he was a pro.

 

[pmcg76]

Why all that negativity towards Moncoutie and Basson?
Is it because a lot of posters in here give them the benefit of the doubt that they ride and rode clean?

your posts in this thread are bordering flickie/ballpolisher levels????[/QUOTE]

In regards to the Bassons issue… It is…Just like Skandar pointed out several months ago, Bassons has sat huddled in a corner for years without saying much of anything. Then Landis (an American) blows the lid off of all this doping issue and then Bassons finds the courage to speak out. It's weak and typical of his mindset to not stay and fight for what he supposedly believed in (clean cycling), while waiting or Landis to lead the way. Sounds like Normandy all over again.

??????? its an opinion not any type of personal attack.

Wait a second, Bassons said nothing until Landis blew the lid off??? what planet have you been living on. First rider to call Armstrong and other riders out in 99 was Bassons, why was he bullied by Amrstrong and his own team?

I have seen Bassons interviewed a few times since then and he always spoke about the problem of doping, he didnt point the finger at anybody individually, more a general overview of the problem. Bassons does not go around shouting his opinion on doping. If he is asked, he responds in kind, thats hardly jumping on the Landis allegations.

 

[pmcg76]

Why pick on Glenn? He's right - you guys really have no idea whether or not Moncoutie (or Bassons) is clean. I'd like to believe that he is, and the evidence seems to point that way, but you can say the same about a thousand riders who then got popped.

But what riders who have been named as clean by known dopers have then been popped for doping?

 

[Benotti69]

Why pick on Glenn? He's right - you guys really have no idea whether or not Moncoutie (or Bassons) is clean. I'd like to believe that he is, and the evidence seems to point that way, but you can say the same about a thousand riders who then got popped.

Not picking on a poster, but questioning their post.

no you cant. Bassons, He now works for the ministry of youth and sport at Bordeaux, in charge of drug tests. Why would a guy talk about 2 speeds and then leave the sport if he was doping?

In Moncoutie's case i think a guy like him would be popped if he was why because he is not part of the omerta, in that he does his own thing. He doesn't talk about doping i presume because he doesn't see any. According to all the anecdotal evidence. It would appear he trains in Paris and not Spain then turns up to races and then heads off to do his own thing till the next one.

 

[VeloCity]

Sorry, but definitively stating that Moncoutie is clean because Gaumont and a few others says he is is just as "naive" (for lack of a better word) as believing that he must have been doping cause he rode for Cofidis.

As I said, I'd like to - and do - believe that Moncoutie is clean, and the evidence certainly seems to point in that direction (or maybe lack thereof would be more accurate), but come on, given the history of this sport, would it really be a big surprise if it turns out that he wasn't?

 

[Benotti69]

Sorry, but definitively stating that Moncoutie is clean because Gaumont and a few others says he is is just as "naive" (for lack of a better word) as believing that he must have been doping cause he rode for Cofidis.

As I said, I'd like to - and do - believe that Moncoutie is clean, and the evidence certainly seems to point in that direction (or maybe lack thereof would be more accurate), but come on, given the history of this sport, would it really be a big surprise if it turns out that he wasn't?

where did anyone state that he was definitely clean?

What has been said is they (Moncoutie and Bassons) are/were considered clean riders. Big difference.

 

[VeloCity]

where did anyone state that he was definitely clean?

What has been said is they (Moncoutie and Bassons) are/were considered clean riders. Big difference.

All Glenn said was that hey, maybe Moncoutie wasn't clean, he did ride for Cofidis after all, and then there's like 3 pages of posters ridiculing him for even suggesting the possibility.

Anyway, see the very first post in this thread - that's a pretty definitive statement right there re: Moncoutie, if in visual form.

 

[python]

All Glenn said was that hey, maybe Moncoutie wasn't clean, he did ride for Cofidis after all, and then there's like 3 pages of posters ridiculing him for even suggesting the possibility.

Anyway, see the very first post in this thread - that's a pretty definitive statement right there re: Moncoutie, if in visual form.

i agree, that opinions on moncoutie can differ and that perfectly fine to agree to disagree. but i think you are not reading the thread correctly. all the posts are still there.

go back and read one of the first question by escarabojo, if glenn willson knew who moncoutie was. the answer was an intentional deflection, 'why should i personally know this doper ?' then there were other people civilly bringing up basis for their opinions, the response was more ill-informed each time, like moncoutie followed floyd's example etc etc.

when someone disagrees and acknowledges the difference it's one thing, it's quite another when a person keeps digging himself into a hole based on poor knowledge.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Why pick on Glenn? He's right - you guys really have no idea whether or not Moncoutie (or Bassons) is clean. I'd like to believe that he is, and the evidence seems to point that way, but you can say the same about a thousand riders who then got popped.

What's the difference whether Moncoutie's clean or not? Really?

What's the difference whether Bassons was lying the whole time and maybe his problem was he just didn't respond well enough to EPO to win a bike race?

It's possible that Bassons is lying, and Moncoutie is doped to the gills.

It's silly to think in absolutes ("Moncoutie is absolutely clean"), but rather in the weight of the preponderance of evidence. A rider demonstrates consistent ordinariness in his professional results with occasional shining moments and much current opinion suggests he has chosen not to dope. This preponderance of evidence can lead to the conclusion that said rider does not rely on illicit performance enhancers to aid his efforts. However, I am open to direct or circumstantial evidence to the contrary. (Occupying a roster spot on a team of dopers would have to be accounted for as circumstantial evidence.)

If you're not open to a challenge of your assumptions, then I consider it axiomatic there is something to hide. It is too bad that those defending other riders are not similarly open to the evidence that is screaming for their attention.

 

[VeloCity]

i agree, that opinions on moncoutie can differ and that perfectly fine to agree to disagree. but i think you are not reading the thread correctly. all the posts are still there.

go back and read one of the first question by escarabojo, if glenn willson knew who moncoutie was. the answer was an intentional deflection, 'why should i personally know this doper ?' then there were other people civilly bringing up basis for their opinions, the response was more ill-informed each time, like moncoutie followed floyd's example etc etc.

when someone disagrees and acknowledges the difference it's one thing, it's quite another when a person keeps digging himself into a hole based on poor knowledge.

The very first post was a series of pics of Moncoutie, in response to a quote taken from another thread about how it's impossible for a clean rider to win, the clear implication being that Moncoutie is a clean rider who can win. Glenn pointed out that he was a Cofidis rider and linked to an article about Cofidis' less than clean past. That he didn't know who the particular rider was - ie that it was Moncoutie - is completely irrelevant - it's only relevant if one is starting from the assumption that Moncoutie is clean. Which we don't know for certain.

 

[python]

The very first post was a series of pics of Moncoutie, in response to a quote taken from another thread about how it's impossible for a clean rider to win, the clear implication being that Moncoutie is a clean rider who can win. Glenn pointed out that he was a Cofidis rider and linked to an article about Cofidis' less than clean past. That he didn't know who the particular rider was - ie that it was Moncoutie - is completely irrelevant.

you either intentionally or not demonstrate that deflecting and and misreading seems your goal...

i said, one of the very first post by escarabajo... you somehow read the very first post

i gave a concrete example of an intentional deflection when escarabjo asked a plain question if he knew 'who moncoutie was'


you are misrepresenting the answer received, 'why should i personally know this doper'. glen wilson received exactly the answers he deserved for his ill knowledge and even you can't cover the facts.

if you have better answers to the rebuttals, put them down. i'm sure there will be people to bite. but pleased don't misrepresent what happened.

 

[VeloCity]

you are misrepresenting the answer received, 'why should i personally know this doper'. glen wilson received exactly the answers he deserved for his ill knowledge and even you can't cover the facts.

if you have better answers to the rebuttals, put them down. i'm sure there will be people to bite. but pleased don't misrepresent what happened.

Again, what does it matter that it was Moncoutie? Glenn's point was that it was a Cofidis rider - doesn't matter who it was.

 

[python]

Again, what does it matter that it was Moncoutie? Glenn's point was that it was a Cofidis rider - doesn't matter who it was.

it matters that you and glen wilson ignore civil answers received and misrepresented them.

 

[hrotha]

Again, what does it matter that it was Moncoutie? Glenn's point was that it was a Cofidis rider - doesn't matter who it was.

Seriously? How does it not matter that it was Moncoutié? That was the crux of the issue.

No one's saying Moncoutié is scientifically proven to be clean. We're saying that, with all the evidence we have, he is probably one of the top-level riders most likely to be clean. No, we can't prove it, but we can still connect the dots.

 

[DirtyWorks]

... and then Bassons finds the courage to speak out. It's weak and typical of his mindset to not stay and fight for what he supposedly believed in (clean cycling),

A couple of things going on here that need to be addressed.
1. You are the one labeling Moncoutie a 'dope fighter.' Moncoutie and other clean riders knows what works for them and made what is for them a very easy decision to ride clean. No heroics. No righteous battles.

2. You consistently repeat the opinion that the entire Pro peloton dopes. Let go of that opinion because it's not true. Even in the very worst of a widely doped peloton during the 90's there were clean riders. Many of their careers were likely cut short because they did the right thing. That's the cost of having strong ethics.

Moncoutie and other clean riders in the history of Pro cycling are not to be faulted for performing among the best riders in the world without doping. What they've done is enough. Really.

If you want to use the thread to explore 'Is just riding clean enough?', then go for it. Otherwise your arguments are fatally flawed many different ways.

 

[Mambo95]

Again, what does it matter that it was Moncoutie? Glenn's point was that it was a Cofidis rider - doesn't matter who it was.

Of course it matters who it was. But, even ignoring Moncoutie himself, those pictures are from 2009/2010 and the Cofidis affair was in 2003/4. Making insinuations about the current Cofidis team because events eight years ago, when few of them were even pros, isn't smart, and nor is mocking another poster without knowing what you're talking about, as GW did.

 

[patricknd]

Seriously? How does it not matter that it was Moncoutié? That was the crux of the issue.

No one's saying Moncoutié is scientifically proven to be clean. We're saying that, with all the evidence we have, he is probably one of the top-level riders most likely to be clean. No, we can't prove it, but we can still connect the dots.

i believe glenn and velocity are connecting the dots as well. from a team with a questionable history to one of their riders. that's the way it's done with others, why is it wrong in this case?

 

[hrotha]

i believe glenn and velocity are connecting the dots as well. from a team with a questionable history to one of their riders. that's the way it's done with others, why is it wrong in this case?

Because they're willingly ignoring some of the most important dots. Hell, at least glenn didn't even know those dots existed, yet was quick on passing judgment and hasn't moved one inch from his original position.

 

[luckyboy]

In the last 20 years of cycling history, these are pretty much the only two riders people hold up as examples of being clean. Riders on their own teams have said this, their DS's have said it, there is not one single shred of evidence that they have doped - apart from guilt by association, and all the anecdotes point to the contrary.

It is, of course, impossible to say that anyone is definitively clean, but if you don't have faith in either of these two riders then there sure as hell isn't anyone else to believe in.

I don't know why you would even watch a sport where you can't believe that there are any participants who are competing without illegal aids.