Moncoutie

[Libertine Seguros]

For the nth time, Gaumont was coming clean about what he knew - that's all. But that's been extrapolated into him knowing for a fact that Moncoutie was clean. That's a jump I'm not willing to accept at face value.

How do you know that Fuentes wasn't telling the truth about Contador? You don't. I don't either. How do you know Gaumont was telling the truth about Moncoutie? You don't. I don't either. So I choose not to believe either of them.

But the thing is, we can extrapolate from other things Gaumont said about the nature of doping at Cofidis that it makes it hard to believe that a rider would hide their doping there. They talked openly about it. It's down to a belief that Gaumont, in his coming clean, was honest about the level of doping in Cofidis and how the riders talked about it, in which case it would be very needless for Moncoutié to be shy and defensive about mentioning doping.

Again, there is a semantic difference between "he isn't one of mine" (therefore he could be somebody else's, but I don't know) and "he is clean". And then you have the interpretation of the intentions and characters of the source.

But this doesn't hide that there are more sources than just Gaumont that have mentioned that Moncoutié is clean.

 

[pmcg76]

For the nth time, Gaumont was coming clean about what he knew - that's all. But that's been extrapolated into him knowing for a fact that Moncoutie was clean. That's a jump I'm not willing to accept at face value.

How do you know that Fuentes wasn't telling the truth about Contador? You don't. I don't either. How do you know Gaumont was telling the truth about Moncoutie? You don't. I don't either. So I choose not to believe either of them.

btw, and i totally forgot about this, but in his court testimony, Gaumont said that only one Cofidis rider - Moncoutie - didn't dope. In his book, it was two - Moncoutie and Tombak. Which version do we believe?

I think we need to reverse the angle a little, how did Gaumont know that everyone on the team was doping other than Moncoutie? My guess would be that he either seen them doping or knew from talking to other team-mates. As I said before team-mates usually know what each other are up to in regards doping.

From this we can assume that Gaumont or his team-mates never seen Moncoutie doping at races. So for example during the 3 weeks of a Tour de France, none of his team-mates seen him doping. Thats a long period without seeing or hearing anything. If Moncoutie was doping he must have been hiding it super well especially as that period would have included more than one Tour, multiple years.

Just checked this, Gaumont & Moncoutie were at Cofidis together for 7 years and had various team-mates busted, linked to affairs and just downright suspicious guys. During that 7 year period Cofidis went through 50-60 riders and yet Gaumont appears to have seen or heard nothing about Moncoutie, especially as that period included 97/98 which were the pre-Festina anything goes years. That would be simply mindblowing. If Moncoutie was that good at hiding his doping from that many people over that period of time, well.....Lance should have hired him as an advisor.

 

[python]

For the nth time, Gaumont was coming clean about what he knew<snip>But that's been extrapolated into him knowing for a fact that Moncoutie was clean. That's a jump I'm not willing to accept at face value.

here's the the very essence of the falsehoods you've been spreading and hiding behind.

no one, i repeat no one, who made a pro-moncoutie post said what you put in their mouth, nor have they asserted gaumont knew 100% that moncoutie 'for a fact was clean'.

in fact, every single moncoutie-sympathetic poster made a very clear allowance for the fact that no one can know exactly what the truth is

the fact that you chose to misrepresent the issue and what so many posters said, is not surprising. by doing that and by essentially talking to yourself, you continue to perpetuate falsehoods that are your real goal - smearing a rider with clean reputation.

still waiting for an answer to a simple question i asked 5 times by now

- why normandy again was the reference your defendant glenn wilson used in reference to the subject of the tread ?

please don't make us guess about the xenophobic or other hyposesis which may or may not be true.




if you have evidence to the contrary, again i challenge you publicly and openly, please bring it up.

 

[Le breton]

Skimming through this thread I found this hilarious comment :

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. ...............

So for all those years you didn't listen to/hear what Bassons had to say and now JUST because LANDIS speaks, by some accident, you hear what Bassons has to say. Did you just find your hearing aid? or your glasses?

 

[VeloCity]

here's the the very essence of the falsehoods you've been spreading and hiding behind.

no one, i repeat no one, who made a pro-moncoutie post said what you put in their mouth, nor have they asserted gaumont knew 100% that moncoutie 'for a fact was clean'.

in fact, every single moncoutie-sympathetic poster made a very clear allowance for the fact that no one can know exactly what the truth is

the fact that you chose to misrepresent the issue and what so many posters said, is not surprising. by doing that and by essentially talking to yourself, you continue to perpetuate falsehoods that are your real goal - smearing a rider with clean reputation.

still waiting for an answer to a simple question i asked 5 times by now

- why normandy again was the reference your defendant glenn wilson used in reference to the subject of the tread ?

please don't make us guess about the xenophobic or other hyposesis which may or may not be true.




if you have evidence to the contrary, again i challenge you publicly and openly, please bring it up.

Yep, you got me. My sole aim was to spread falsehoods to smear the reputation of a clean rider.

Now that we've settled that, I guess there's no reason for you to respond to any of my posts for the rest of this thread, right? k thanx.

 

[Le breton]

...........

Last edited by pedaling squares; Today at 02:45. Reason: removed an insult
I found this at the bottom of my last post. Could you possibly remind me, as a personal message if you wish, what commentary of mine you found insulting?
I remember being in a sarcastic mood and possibly even slightly offensive, but insulting?

Thanks for a square reply.

 

[Von Mises]

Yep, you got me. My sole aim was to spread falsehoods to smear the reputation of a clean rider.

Now that we've settled that, I guess there's no reason for you to respond to any of my posts for the rest of this thread, right? k thanx.

Every normal person understands that that different arguments and evidence have hierarchy. Some are stronger, some are weaker. Also, context matters, they are not floating in empty space.

VeloCity does not seem to get it. His like a sophist who argues for argument's sake.

Gaumont´s words about Moncoutie and Fuentes words about Contador are in different categories, aswell as in different context. Funetes is not saying that Contador is clean, just that he was not one of his clients.

But Gaumont is saying that Moncoutie is clean. Even more, if I read him correctly he is saying, that he knows for certain only two riders (Moncoutie, Tombak). My emphasis on the word certain. Btw, some people are interpreting Gaumont inccorectly as he is saying that all others were dirty. No, maybe there were more clean riders, but there were only two Gaumont knew for certain. This is very strong statement, much stronger than Fuentes words.

 

[VeloCity]

Gaumont´s words about Moncoutie and Fuentes words about Contador are in different categories, aswell as in different context. Funetes is not saying that Contador is clean, just that he was not one of his clients.

But Gaumont is saying that Moncoutie is clean. Even more, if I read him correctly he is saying, that he knows for certain only two riders (Moncoutie, Tombak). My emphasis on the word certain. Btw, some people are interpreting Gaumont inccorectly as he is saying that all others were dirty. No, maybe there were more clean riders, but there were only two Gaumont knew for certain. This is very strong statement, much stronger than Fuentes words.

All Gaumont "knows for certain" is that he never saw or had any direct, personal experience of Moncoutie doping. He doesn't "know for certain" that Moncoutie was clean.

 

[Von Mises]

All Gaumont "knows for certain" is that he never saw or had any direct, personal experience of Moncoutie doping. He doesn't "know for certain" that Moncoutie was clean.

VeloCity, we all know that Gaumont´s words are not scientific proof, but as smart people we are also able to judge strenght and context of different evidence.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

VeloCity, we all know that Gaumont´s words are not scientific proof, but as smart people we are also able to judge strenght and context of different evidence.

Don't count on it...

 

[Hampsten88]

VeloCity, we all know that Gaumont´s words are not scientific proof, but as smart people we are also able to judge strenght and context of different evidence.

Based on the things written in this thread about multiple riders and in other threads I would say it's based mostly on the opinion of the individual about that rider. Things that are used to say we "know" or "strongly believe" that one rider is clean are not good enough for another rider. That is the problem with they way people talk about doping, once one person publicly says a rider dopes it will never be 100 % proven that the person did not dope. Someone will always have an excuse why the accused did dope. It works the other way as well, once a doper gets busted someone will always find an excuse why he is not guilty. It's messed up and the worst part is how much of it comes from people who post anonymously on internet message boards and blogs.

 

[Benotti69]

Based on the things written in this thread about multiple riders and in other threads I would say it's based mostly on the opinion of the individual about that rider. Things that are used to say we "know" or "strongly believe" that one rider is clean are not good enough for another rider. That is the problem with they way people talk about doping, once one person publicly says a rider dopes it will never be 100 % proven that the person did not dope. Someone will always have an excuse why the accused did dope. It works the other way as well, once a doper gets busted someone will always find an excuse why he is not guilty. It's messed up and the worst part is how much of it comes from people who post anonymously on internet message boards and blogs.

I fully agree Andy.

 

[Hampsten88]

I fully agree Andy.

1) Why am I not surprised that you, of all people, would not agree that the rumors and accusations spread by anonymous forum posters and bloggers are a big part of why this is all messed up.

2) I am still waiting for you to answer my second question, so that we can continue our discussion

 

[pmcg76]

Based on the things written in this thread about multiple riders and in other threads I would say it's based mostly on the opinion of the individual about that rider. Things that are used to say we "know" or "strongly believe" that one rider is clean are not good enough for another rider. That is the problem with they way people talk about doping, once one person publicly says a rider dopes it will never be 100 % proven that the person did not dope. Someone will always have an excuse why the accused did dope. It works the other way as well, once a doper gets busted someone will always find an excuse why he is not guilty. It's messed up and the worst part is how much of it comes from people who post anonymously on internet message boards and blogs.

Thats makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread, nobody is arguing Gaumont was not guilty. What we are saying is their is more evidence of Moncoutie not doping than their is that he did dope. Moncoutie has never tested positive so what is the evidence against him.

 

[Benotti69]

Thats makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread, nobody is arguing Gaumont was not guilty. What we are saying is their is more evidence of Moncoutie not doping than their is that he did dope. Moncoutie has never tested positive so what is the evidence against him.

that's the whole point

 

[Hampsten88]

Thats makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread, nobody is arguing Gaumont was not guilty. What we are saying is their is more evidence of Moncoutie not doping than their is that he did dope. Moncoutie has never tested positive so what is the evidence against him.

Actually it makes perfect sense and you have done an excellent job providing an example when you finish up by saying "Moncoutie has never tested positive so what is the evidence against him." You see, some say the evidence is that he was on a team, Cofidis, that had team wide doping. Those people have that opinion. You choose to hear Gaumont say he never saw Moncoutie do any doping and see no positive tests, so your opinion is that he is clean. Some see the positive test of Contador and say he is guilty of doping while others say it was really tainted meat or was too small of a result to call it doping. It's all based on opinion.

 

[pmcg76]

Actually it makes perfect sense and you have done an excellent job providing an example when you finish up by saying "Moncoutie has never tested positive so what is the evidence against him." You see, some say the evidence is that he was on a team, Cofidis, that had team wide doping. Those people have that opinion. You choose to hear Gaumont say he never saw Moncoutie do any doping and see no positive tests, so your opinion is that he is clean. Some see the positive test of Contador and say he is guilty of doping while others say it was really tainted meat or was too small of a result to call it doping. It's all based on opinion.

No my point is, if a rider has never tested positive, then you need some other form of evidence. For some posters, being on certain teams is evidence e.g Cofidis but when a confirmed doper says a certain rider on that doped team didnt dope, that kinda negates the fact that he was on a doped up team.

Name me a rider who people link to doping without any evidence at all?

And who on here thinks Contador's case was due to tainted meat

 

[ludwig]

Actually it makes perfect sense and you have done an excellent job providing an example when you finish up by saying "Moncoutie has never tested positive so what is the evidence against him." You see, some say the evidence is that he was on a team, Cofidis, that had team wide doping. Those people have that opinion. You choose to hear Gaumont say he never saw Moncoutie do any doping and see no positive tests, so your opinion is that he is clean. Some see the positive test of Contador and say he is guilty of doping while others say it was really tainted meat or was too small of a result to call it doping. It's all based on opinion.

Of course it's based on opinion. It is an educated opinion, and people have the right to have an express these opinions.

As for the contention that Gaumont's words suggest Moncoutie is clean....it's pretty weak I'm afraid. That one doper wanted to protect Moncoutie and claimed Moncoutie WAS innocent is NOT compelling evidence that Moncoutie was and has remained clean. Moncoutie is a premier rider in a doped-soaked sport--you do the math.

For the record, keep in mind Moncoutie has won a number of climbing stages at the Vuelta in recent years. In my mind, that makes it extremely extremely likely he is doping like the rest--if he isn't then he's some kind of freak talent. Between 'doping' and 'freak talent' we all know what is the more likely explanation.

 

[Hampsten88]

No my point is, if a rider has never tested positive, then you need some other form of evidence. For some posters, being on certain teams is evidence e.g Cofidis but when a confirmed doper says a certain rider on that doped team didnt dope, that kinda negates the fact that he was on a doped up team.

It negates it simply because your opinion is that if a confirmed doper says another rider on the same team was clean then it must be so.

Others would say it does not negate anything because the person saying he is clean is a confirmed cheater and liar.

You see, opinion.

Name me a rider who people link to doping without any evidence at all?

What's the point? Will it change your mind? I doubt it but I can use a famous cycling example and one from another sport:

In 1999 Armstrong does well in the prologue and immediately people are claiming he must be doping simply because he won the prologue.

In baseball Albert Pujols has been the victim of the internet rumor mongers repeatedly and all because he is an excellent player, not because of anything he has done.

And who on here thinks Contador's case was due to tainted meat

I could not tell you specific people on here as I have not been posting here long, but you can look through the other cycling forums and find people defending Contador. I do find it interesting how you choose to focus on only one of the options I presented being used for Contador.

 

[Hugh Januss]

OK, it's time.

 

[Hampsten88]

Of course it's based on opinion. It is an educated opinion, and people have the right to have an express these opinions.

As for the contention that Gaumont's words suggest Moncoutie is clean....it's pretty weak I'm afraid. That one doper wanted to protect Moncoutie and claimed Moncoutie WAS innocent is NOT compelling evidence that Moncoutie was and has remained clean. Moncoutie is a premier rider in a doped-soaked sport--you do the math.

For the record, keep in mind Moncoutie has won a number of climbing stages at the Vuelta in recent years. In my mind, that makes it extremely extremely likely he is doping like the rest--if he isn't then he's some kind of freak talent. Between 'doping' and 'freak talent' we all know what is the more likely explanation.

I agree completely, though I will say that sometimes I think the "educated opinion" is one of a very low grade level and/or influenced by the individuals personal opinion of that rider. (Just look at how people are very quick to buy into excuses given for certain riders in the Fuentes case, whether they are saying the person was a client or not)

 

[patricknd]

OK, it's time.

it's only been 17 pages, that nag is still alive and kicking

 

[roundabout]

Of course it's based on opinion. It is an educated opinion, and people have the right to have an express these opinions.

As for the contention that Gaumont's words suggest Moncoutie is clean....it's pretty weak I'm afraid. That one doper wanted to protect Moncoutie and claimed Moncoutie WAS innocent is NOT compelling evidence that Moncoutie was and has remained clean. Moncoutie is a premier rider in a doped-soaked sport--you do the math.

For the record, keep in mind Moncoutie has won a number of climbing stages at the Vuelta in recent years. In my mind, that makes it extremely extremely likely he is doping like the rest--if he isn't then he's some kind of freak talent. Between 'doping' and 'freak talent' we all know what is the more likely explanation.

Winning stages from breakaways makes Moncoutie extremely extremely likely to be doping?

 

[pmcg76]

I agree completely, though I will say that sometimes I think the "educated opinion" is one of a very low grade level and/or influenced by the individuals personal opinion of that rider. (Just look at how people are very quick to buy into excuses given for certain riders in the Fuentes case, whether they are saying the person was a client or not)

You realise you are now agreeing with somebody who believes that 100% of cyclists dope and the only evidence he has for that is that they are pro cyclists.

So you agree that 100% of cyclists dope?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Now that everyone has expressed their opinion, often multiple times, and their displeasure with others opinions, often multiple times, does anyone have anything constructive to add to this discussion?

I ask because if you're just going to bicker about what someone else says, further posts will be deleted.