Moncoutie

[JMBeaushrimp]

I'm filing this thread under: Lost All Functional Utility

 

[pmcg76]

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

Dont bother, I went 10 rounds with Ludwig on this subject before, he believes 100% of cyclists dope and he has no room for exceptions.

The fact that Moncoutie won from breaks is irrelevant in his world if you win, you dope.

 

[Hampsten88]

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?

One can agree with a point made by someone even if that person does not agree with everything they believe.

 

[pmcg76]

You know, I have yet to hear someone explain the psychology of a doped rider defending one rider on their team as being clean, if they were not friends.

Aslo why did everyone believe Bassons was clean, he was cleared by Willy Voet, how is Willy Voet any more believable than Gaumont. Yet all the press and everyone agrees Bassons was clean. Have yet to hear anyone contradict that.

 

[VeloCity]

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

Seriously? That's done all the time here. There's a 26-page thread alone about how Cancellara must be doping.

 

[VeloCity]

You know, I have yet to hear someone explain the psychology of a doped rider defending one rider on their team as being clean, if they were not friends.

Because Gaumont truly believed that Moncoutie was clean, because Gaumont had no direct knowledge of Moncoutie doping, because it's most likely Gaumont was telling the truth as he knew it.

But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Moncoutie was doping, only that, so far as Gaumont knew, Moncoutie wasn't doping. As you point out, they weren't close, so how could Gaumont possibly know what Moncoutie was really up to?

 

[pmcg76]

Seriously? That's done all the time here. There's a 26-page thread alone about how Cancellara must be doping.

That would be because he worked with Bjarne Riis, Mapei etc which for some is evidence. People feels his performances are so outrageous that he must be doping. I dont think I have ever accused Cancellara of doping but I bet your friend Glenn Wilson believes he dopes. I am not one of those who thinks everyone dopes.

You will say the same criteria should be applied to Mocoutie as he rode for Cofidis which I dont disagree with but the big difference is this, Cancellara has never had a Gaumont say he doesnt dope. Until someone explains to me why Gaumont would lie about the subject, I am prepared to believe what he said.

In fact you have given me a perfect opportunity. Comparing Moncoutie and Cancellara, give me a % probability of which rider is more likely to be clean.
More importantly, why?

 

[pmcg76]

Because Gaumont truly believed that Moncoutie was clean, because Gaumont had no direct knowledge of Moncoutie doping, because it's most likely Gaumont was telling the truth as he knew it.

But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Moncoutie was doping, only that, so far as Gaumont knew, Moncoutie wasn't doping. As you point out, they weren't close, so how could Gaumont possibly know what Moncoutie was really up to?

But its not just Gaumont, it would seem that none of his team-mates seen anything either. In 7 years, Gaumont never heard a single report from any other team-mates about Moncoutie doping. Thats almost 60 riders, zero, zilch.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

I am quoting myself as I cannot be bothered repeating myself and as this was ignored before.

Nobody knows anything for certain but I think their is a high probability that Gaumont would know if Moncoutie was doping, maybe not 100% but I would say maybe 90% sure which is still pretty sure.

 

[python]

ok, since my simple question seems to have gotten buried under a pile of posts, yet never even attempted to be addressed, i have to repeat it:

what does "NORMANDY AGAIN " as posted by glenn wilson got to do with the subject of this thread - moncoutier the rider from france.

please help me, mr. glenn wilson or his very active spokeman/defender mr. velocity...


why are you avoiding what would seem to be a simple thing to answer ?

 

[Hampsten88]

That would be because he worked with Bjarne Riis, Mapei etc which for some is evidence. People feels his performances are so outrageous that he must be doping. I dont think I have ever accused Cancellara of doping but I bet your friend Glenn Wilson believes he dopes. I am not one of those who thinks everyone dopes.

You will say the same criteria should be applied to Mocoutie as he rode for Cofidis which I dont disagree with but the big difference is this, Cancellara has never had a Gaumont say he doesnt dope. Until someone explains to me why Gaumont would lie about the subject, I am prepared to believe what he said.

In fact you have given me a perfect opportunity. Comparing Moncoutie and Cancellara, give me a % probability of which rider is more likely to be clean.
More importantly, why?

1) You can find a link to doping for any rider if you choose to look hard enough.

2) It's your opinion to decide the word of a confirmed doper and liar is good enough for you. Others have a different opinion.

3) You are providing excellent examples of what I initially said.

4) It's interesting to see how you jump around as to what you respond to and what you say. I can only see one line of logic to it.

 

[python]

ok, since my simple question seems to have gotten buried under a pile of posts, yet never even attempted to be addressed, i have to repeat it:

what does "NORMANDY AGAIN " as posted by glenn wilson got to do with the subject of this thread - moncoutier the rider from france.

please help me, mr. glenn wilson or his very active spokeman/defender mr. velocity...


why are you avoiding what would seem to be a simple thing to answer ?

or yeah, forgot to add, i will diligently provide links to the appropriate posts in the thread which seem to have been piled on.

thank you

 

[skippythepinhead]

Some people need to get familiar with the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But once that happens, the rationale for continuing this discussion disappears.

I'd say based strictly on the preponderance basis that it is 23% more likely that Spartacus doped than Moncoutie. All evidence used being circumstantial (please note that "circumstantial" refers to an evidence's type NOT its quality) and inferential rather than direct.

However, my ultimate opinion is that Spartacus and Moncoutie both are not "dopers." I would not be surprised to find out that Spartacus had dabbled in the past, but would be very surprised if he were 'on a program.' He would need better tour results for me to infer that. I'd love to have him on my team for a tour, but what a great classics guy.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

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.

Normally, you'd be right, but what you fail to take into consideration is that Gaumont accused 97% of his team mates of doping. Including the teams biggest star.

 

[VeloCity]

In fact you have given me a perfect opportunity. Comparing Moncoutie and Cancellara, give me a % probability of which rider is more likely to be clean.

Well, I wasn't comparing Moncoutie to Cancellara at all. But I'll play.

On the pro side, I'd give them the same probability of being clean.
On the con side, I'd give them the same probability of being dopers.

More importantly, why?

On the pro side, because there's no evidence linking either of them to doping. On the con side, both Cancellara and Moncoutie ride/rode for teams/ds' with checkered pasts. Both have had a number of teammates busted for doping. Both have won a number of races/stages over known dopers.

But in the same vein as your query, let me turn it around a bit by asking a hypothetical: if, say, Frank Schleck was busted for doping and then in court said that there was only one Saxo rider - Fabian Cancellara - who was clean and then wrote a book claiming oh wait there were actually two Saxo riders - Fabian Cancellara and (i dunno, say) Stuart O'Grady - who were clean, do you think people would be more or less inclined to believe Schleck as they would Gaumont?

 

[Hampsten88]

My real question is why say someone is doping if you do not have definitive proof? What does that accomplish?

 

[Hugh Januss]

My real question is why say someone is doping if you do not have definitive proof? What does that accomplish?

And what constitutes "definitive proof" in your eyes? Basso and Ulrich have "never failed a drug test" unlike HWSNBN.

 

[skippythepinhead]

My real question is why say someone is doping if you do not have definitive proof? What does that accomplish?

Your posts are funny.

 

[Hampsten88]

Hugh Januss- How about a positive test or an admission of guilt? Take a look at these forums and many other cycling forums, heck, any sports forums and you will see people claiming that so and so took PED's and usually they "know" it. What does that accomplish?

 

[DirtyWorks]

My real question is why say someone is doping if you do not have definitive proof? What does that accomplish?

This is a common tactic used by many including the cigarette industry to end the discussion 'smoking causes cancer.' They claim there's never been a causal link established. And they are right. The cigarette industry uses one extreme definition of proof while reasonable people who examine facts on lung cancer can agreee that cigarettes play a meaningful factor in killing people.

What you are stating is something like, "If something quacks like a duck, weighs as much as a duck, floats in the water like a duck, has feet like a duck, a head like a duck, then there's no proof it's a duck."

Your perspective obliterates all inferred discussion. That's not how the world works.

The beauty of tested inferences is they do reflect reality. To conclude with my example, there's enough information to believe it's a duck. And it is!

For you to hang onto the notion that a positive result on a dope test is some kind of definitive proof that doping did occur is ignoring the enormous amount of testimonial that doping positives happened and were never processed by federations.

Perhaps you should examine why you insist on holding such an unrealistic view of the circumstances.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Hugh Januss- How about a positive test or an admission of guilt? Take a look at these forums and many other cycling forums, heck, any sports forums and you will see people claiming that so and so took PED's and usually they "know" it. What does that accomplish?

You might as well ask, "Why the internet?" or "Why be human?"

This is why your posts are funny.

 

[pmcg76]

Hugh Januss- How about a positive test or an admission of guilt? Take a look at these forums and many other cycling forums, heck, any sports forums and you will see people claiming that so and so took PED's and usually they "know" it. What does that accomplish?

Ah I get it, you joined a public forum to tell people that they shouldnt speculate or try to form opinions on what they are interested in.

To do so would be hypocritical right!!!

Wow, WTF are you doing here then?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

You might as well ask, "Why the internet?" or "Why be human?"

This is why your posts are funny.

It's not the only reason...

 

[skippythepinhead]

It's not the only reason...

I know, but I'm rather hoping it's real individual faux-naivete rather than your run-of-the-mill "Austinhivemindcentric" variety.

 

[Hampsten88]

I am sorry and I will attempt to get back to the topic of Moncoutie instead of making people think about what they are doing and saying on internet message boards.

I humbly apologize and beg for forgiveness from those who have clearly been stung by my terribly mean question.