Moncoutie

[Benotti69]

I'm more than willing to give any rider the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise, but I've been burned too many times in the past to have "faith" that this or that rider is clean simply because there hasn't been, up until this point, evidence linking them to doping. With a rider like Moncoutie, I see no reason at this point to think that he's a doper, but for all we know, he could get busted tomorrow. But by not having "faith" in him, if that were to happen, I would be more than a little disappointed but I wouldn't be devastated. Given the history of the sport over the past 2 decades or so, I just don't see the point in having "faith" in any rider, Moncoutie or otherwise. I used to have favorite riders but not anymore - personally, and just speaking for myself obviously, nowadays I follow the "sport" of cycling as opposed to rooting for individual riders, if that makes any sense.

I fully agree with not having faith anymore but that's because of the riders doping and the UCI's despicable way in which it 'mafias' the sport. As far as Moncoutie getting busted, i wouldn't be surprised because i am not surprised to hear of a cyclist (or any athlete in any sport) testing positive but with Moncoutie i would also wonder was he set up by the cycling mafia.

 

[VeloCity]

but with Moncoutie i would also wonder was he set up by the cycling mafia.

The problem with that is then any positive test that involves a particular rider can be "excused" - if I recall correctly, there were a whole bunch of folks who refused to accept Landis' positive and blamed the tests, the lab, the UCI, etc etc.

So if that's the case - ie if even a positive wouldn't be enough to fully convince you that Moncoutie was doping - what would be enough?

 

[Hampsten88]

If you think I am Italian can I presume you are Andy Hampsten and that you live In Italy?

Where did I say anything about you? I simply used something that is pretty well known and used it with the same lack of logic you use when it comes to doping...all generalized assumptions based on small bits of knowledge and your personal opinion.

You seem to spend a lot of time doing the same things that you rip on others for doing.

Let's generalise about americans shall we, no better not there isn't enough server space on CN for that.

Do you mean like how you generalize about all cyclists?

you have yet to correctly interpret any of my posts.

What posters and i am saying is the dots join to a clean Moncoutie. We don't know if a rider is clean or a doper without having a positive. But cycling has proven to be a sport where a higher percentage of pros are doping. How do we know this? the speeds of the races are still higher than when the PEDs started to affect performance and not recovery. All the info is contained in many of the threads in here as it has been discussed and debated at length.

1) You said that guilt before innocence is the fault of the sport. That's pretty simple to interpret correctly...unless the poster decides to claim he meant something else when he gets called on it. (second time today you have done that...makes me wonder if you do it all the time).

2) Can you prove that "cycling has proven to be a sport where a higher percentage of pros are doping?" The answer is no, because very few, if any, other pro sports have as good/strict of a testing program. (I am not saying there isn't doping or even a lot of it, simply that you make an assertion that you can't prove)

3) Still waiting for you to answer my second question.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

The first major piece of media that came out from Bassons was AFTER Floyd spoke up. WoW. That was not so hard. He was basically hiding under a rock somewhere helping who? It was not on the entire cycling world media. Maybe if you were a fan yeah but not out there everywhere.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Re read what I said. Did I say "Bassons said nothing"? NO. Anyhow the thread is not about Bassons. It was about Cofidis cyclist being a picture of clean cycling.

 

[Hampsten88]

The first major piece of media that came out from Bassons was AFTER Floyd spoke up. WoW. That was not so hard. He was basically hiding under a rock somewhere helping who? It was not on the entire cycling world media. Maybe if you were a fan yeah but not out there everywhere.

To be fair Bassons was writing a daily column while riding the 1999 Tour for LeParisien

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

No man it was a ALL about the Cofidis team history.

Mancoutie may very well be clean but I would not be surprised if he just happened to eat the beef.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Don't you think that Glenn would be better served in his argument if he didn't feel the need to belittle Bassons and Moncoutie by calling them out of their names (Baffoon/Mancutie) as if it is they who are here opposing his perspective and not some anonymous posters? I can see his point to a certain degree its just that his approach isn't conducive to a civil conversation.

WoW you think I am the only one calling people names. See the "texas" crowd. Also for an example someone I usually agree with posted on #57 of this thread some seriously insulting things. Did we report or go all haywire? NOPE your want a civil conversation well I am here. My opinion does not fall in lock step with the majority. To bad.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To be fair Bassons was writing a daily column while riding the 1999 Tour for LeParisien

you are correct but he did not come out from under the rock until he wanted to insult Floyd's character.

 

[patricknd]

WoW you think I am the only one calling people names. See the "texas" crowd. Also for an example someone I usually agree with posted on #57 of this thread some seriously insulting things. Did we report or go all haywire? NOPE your want a civil conversation well I am here. My opinion does not fall in lock step with the majority. To bad.

I didn't take benotti's retort as an insult. I assumed he was smart enough to understand that I was joking. Of course, I could be mistaken re his intelligence...

 

[Escarabajo]

you are correct but he did not come out from under the rock until he wanted to insult Floyd's character.

I did not see it as an insult, but then again we have different points of views.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I did not see it as an insult, but then again we have different points of views.

Many share your opinion Escarabajo. I am in the minority on this.

 

[Barrus]

Take Bassons to the Bassons thread, leave it out of here

 

[Benotti69]

I didn't take benotti's retort as an insult. I assumed he was smart enough to understand that I was joking. Of course, I could be mistaken re his intelligence...

it was a retort to a troll, nothing more to see

 

[Von Mises]

Why should Glenn "move one inch" from his original position just because he maybe isn't so convinced as others seem to be that Moncoutie (or more accurately, any Cofidis rider) is clean?

He should move because his argument was stupid and the way he presented it (linking to Gaumont story) only reconfirmed that he doe not know what hei s talking about. Later when he claimed that Bassons opened his mouth only after Landis (not true) showed again that he does not know what hei s talking about.

Of course he has every right not to move one inch, same way he has every right to be too and show his ignorance.

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 because he linked to Gaumont story. It shows that he did not know who was Moncoutie, he did not know who was Gaumont and what was his story. This ignorance undermines Glenn´s credibility and shows that he is talking talking about things he does not know.

So no wonder old Moncoutié irked Cofidis top brass back then. Sure, he stayed away and trained in Paris but it probably has more to do with a clean rider in a dirty team (at the time) being an organisational risk. Who's holding the trump card if you try to play contractual hardball? Who do the cops go to for an unimpeachable witness?

I think you are reading too much into this.

I dont know Moncoutie, I dont know gaumont, but I do know couple of people from Cofidis. I believe that Moncoutie is and was clean and I believe that Cofidis as a team has been clean from 2004. I would say that same applies more or less to other French teams aswell.
But Moncouties personality quirks/his trainig habits and the fact that he is clean are two separate issues. You can be loner and doper, same way you can be loner and non-doper. Personality is not an issue here.

 

[VeloCity]

He should move because his argument was stupid and the way he presented it (linking to Gaumont story) only reconfirmed that he doe not know what hei s talking about. Later when he claimed that Bassons opened his mouth only after Landis (not true) showed again that he does not know what hei s talking about.

Of course he has every right not to move one inch, same way he has every right to be too and show his ignorance.


It matters because he linked to Gaumont story. It shows that he did not know who was Moncoutie, he did not know who was Gaumont and what was his story. This ignorance undermines Glenn´s credibility and shows that he is talking talking about things he does not know.




I think you are reading too much into this.

I dont know Moncoutie, I dont know gaumont, but I do know couple of people from Cofidis. I believe that Moncoutie is and was clean and I believe that Cofidis as a team has been clean from 2004. I would say that same applies more or less to other French teams aswell.
But Moncouties personality quirks/his trainig habits and the fact that he is clean are two separate issues. You can be loner and doper, same way you can be loner and non-doper. Personality is not an issue here.

How many times do I have to repeat this? It doesn't matter that it was Moncoutie - to Glenn, Cofidis = doping. That it was Moncoutie IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Starting to realize that the truly ignorant one's here are those with blind faith that Moncoutie is clean.

 

[hrotha]

How many times do I have to repeat this? It doesn't matter that it was Moncoutie - to Glenn, Cofidis = doping. That it was Moncoutie IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Starting to realize that the truly ignorant one's here are those with blind faith that Moncoutie is clean.

We already went over why Cofidis = doping isn't true.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

How many times do I have to repeat this? It doesn't matter that it was Moncoutie - to Glenn, Cofidis = doping. That it was Moncoutie IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Starting to realize that the truly ignorant one's here are those with blind faith that Moncoutie is clean.

Surely that it was Moncoutie is the only thing that is relevant. That was the point of posting those particular pictures? If all you see is a Cofidis rider then you have missed the point of them? Now whether you believe he is clean or not is another matter but it is generally accepted that he is and that was/is the context in which to view them.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The pig headedness in this thread blows my mind.
The OP sets the RELEVANCE of the debate.
The fact that the OP shows 4 photos of 1 rider shows clear meaning.
The fact that someone is unable to figure out the OP's meaning is IRRELEVANT.

What would be RELEVANT now, is for one of those who do not see Moncoutie as a reasonable example of a rider considered to be probably clean, to stop talking in absolutes and supply the debate with a better example of a rider considered to be clean, from within the pro-peloton.
Of course, to avoid further obfuscation, supporting links would be appreciated.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

3) Still waiting for you to answer my second question.

The way I see it, and I already said it before, is that it is impossible to know if somebody dopes unless you live, sleep or hang out with that person. Even with those things you still need the UCI tests to corroborate that his passport shows a profile of a clean rider. But even with those things in place it is almost 100% impossible to know if the guy is clean because he can snicks in the bathroom for 15 minutes and dope without anybody knowing. How do we know that in fact that is not happening? It is impossible to know.

Other than this we can only conclude by deduction of facts that he could be in fact be clean:

1- Other dopers and teammates have said that he was clean,
2- Believable power outputs
3- Believable recuperation behavior during a 3 week GT
4- No positives,
5- Not involved in any scandals
6- Not a very driven personality,
7- Bio Passport in check and
8- Every now and then he has made comments about the two speeds in the peloton (2003, 2005).

 

[Benotti69]

How many times do I have to repeat this? It doesn't matter that it was Moncoutie - to Glenn, Cofidis = doping. That it was Moncoutie IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Starting to realize that the truly ignorant one's here are those with blind faith that Moncoutie is clean.

Cofidis are a doping team in 2011????

 

[Mellow Velo]

Cofidis are a doping team in 2011????

Look on the bright side. Using this...........er.........logic.

Astana team 2007, rife with doping. Half the team caught, Mazzoleni doping ring etc.
Astana team 2008-2010 therefore (under Bruyneel and with ykw) = team of dopers.
Ergo, Radio Shack 2010-2011 = team of dopers.

OK, so perhaps this isn't the best example of their flawed logic.

 

[VeloCity]

The pig headedness in this thread blows my mind.
The OP sets the RELEVANCE of the debate.
The fact that the OP shows 4 photos of 1 rider shows clear meaning.
The fact that someone is unable to figure out the OP's meaning is IRRELEVANT.

What would be RELEVANT now, is for one of those who do not see Moncoutie as a reasonable example of a rider considered to be probably clean, to stop talking in absolutes and supply the debate with a better example of a rider considered to be clean, from within the pro-peloton.
Of course, to avoid further obfuscation, supporting links would be appreciated.

Look, this is not that hard to understand - Glenn saw a pic of a Cofidis rider. He automatically equated a Cofidis rider with doping (doesn't matter that it was Moncoutie, it could've been any Cofidis rider). Someone pointed out that it was Moncoutie, ie a rider with a reputation for being clean. Glenn didn't know that it was Moncoutie, but when others pointed out Moncoutie's reputation, Glenn in turn pointed out that it doesn't really matter what anyone says about Moncoutie, he rides for Cofidis and that's enough to raise doubts (to him) that Moncoutie's clean, regardless of what Gaumont or anyone else has to say about him. You can call that cynical or whatever, but so what? It's Glenn's view, and one for which he has since been called "ignorant" and so forth, simply because he (a) he didn't know it was Moncoutie in the pics and (b) because, to him, it doesn't really matter who it was in the pics, he rides for Cofidis and that automatically makes him suspect.

So why is it ok to play "guilt by association" for some riders/teams but not for others? There's not a shred of evidence that Contador was doping when he was Liberty, but there's a hell of a lot of posters here who play that guilt-by-association card for Contador ("ok, Fuente's said he wasn't a client and there's no evidence that Contador was doping while at LS, but hey, he rode for Saiz at the time of OP, that's enough for me!"). Pretty much any rider who rode/rides for any team led by Bruyneel or Riis becomes automatically suspect. And yet when Glenn does the same re: Moncoutie-Cofidis, he gets jumped for it.

So let's try it this way:

Sure, there's not a shred of evidence that Contador/Moncoutie was doping, but hey, he rode/rides for Liberty/Cofidis and Saiz/Guimard, a team/DS with a less than stellar reputation when it comes to doping.

Seems to me a bit of a double standard that it's perfectly acceptable to play guilt by association for some riders/teams while others are off limits. If you're going to play up the Contador-Liberty-Saiz link (for eg), then there's nothing wrong with someone else playing up the Moncoutie-Cofidis-Guimard link.

 

[VeloCity]

Cofidis are a doping team in 2011????

What does 2011 have to do with anything? Someone presents Moncoutie as a clean rider. Glenn questions whether any Cofidis rider can be considered clean by pointing out that Cofidis is a team with a bit of a questionable past when it comes to doping. What Cofidis may or may not be doing now is irrelevant.

 

[hrotha]

Pretty much any rider who rode/rides for any team led by Bruyneel or Riis becomes automatically suspect. And yet when Glenn does the same re: Moncoutie-Cofidis, he gets jumped for it.

Because no other riders, certainly not Contador or anyone else you're bringing up, have had comparable stuff said about them by people with nothing to gain. Why is this so hard to understand?