Moncoutie

[Don't be late Pedro]

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.

But, as someone else wrote, there is more to it then just riding for suspect teams.

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,
8- Every now and then he has made comments about the two speeds in the peloton (2003, 2005).

How many of the above would apply to Contador or anyone else?

 

[VeloCity]

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?

Fuentes said explicitly that Contador was not one of his clients. How is that any different than Gaumont saying Moncoutie was not doping? And yet, the conventional wisdom here is Contador = LS = Saiz = OP/Fuentes = Contador must have been doping regardless of what Fuentes says while Moncoutie = Cofidis = Guimard = Gaumont = Moncoutie was not doping because Gaumont says he wasn't.

Seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

You stated Cofidis = doping. I was curious do you mean when Millar doped or do you mean they are still a doping team?You answered that above.

Can GW not respond to the posters for himself?

 

[hrotha]

Fuentes said explicitly that Contador was not one of his clients.

Fuentes had a lot to gain from that statement. The young guns at Liberty (Contador, Barredo, Davis, LL Sánchez...) were saved while the older riders were sacrificed. Some documents from the dossier disappeared (you can check this yourself, they're numbered). No one was interested in having a lost generation of Spanish riders (allow me to introduce to you: Valverde!).

More importantly, Fuentes wasn't coming clean. He was selective about what he said and what he didn't. He never told the story. He never even explicitly acknowledged he was doping his clients (although implicitly he did). It's not comparable by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Fuentes said explicitly that Contador was not one of his clients.

And this is different from Gaumont saying Moncoutie is clean, how?
Still happy to accept a better candidate for our clean cyclist award.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You stated Cofidis = doping. I was curious do you mean when Millar doped or do you mean they are still a doping team?You answered that above.

Can GW not respond to the posters for himself?

Sure I can. I said before that I did not know who the cyclist in the picture was. I just was = Cofidis = doping. You say the team today is clean. I say the past actions of the Cofidis team did not = clean cycling.

 

[Benotti69]

Sure I can. I said before that I did not know who the cyclist in the picture was. I just was = Cofidis = doping. You say the team today is clean. I say the past actions of the Cofidis team did not = clean cycling.

I never said the team is clean.

 

[skippythepinhead]

It's rather simple, really. If you are presented a post with pics of a platypus by someone who is discussing "the platypus" and all you see is a mammal and you spend all of your efforts trying to cover up the fact that you couldn't recognize a platypus, then you probably missed the point of the discussion. Even if you want to spend the next 734 posts saying that your point is the real point, you still missed the freaking point.

 

[roundabout]

I am at a bit of a loss as to what's being discussed here. That Moncoutie's "clean" reputation is undeserved or is it something else alltogether?

 

[VeloCity]

And this is different from Gaumont saying Moncoutie is clean, how?

It's not. That's the point. Gaumont says Moncoutie is clean, Fuentes says Contador is clean. All either are really saying is that they don't have personal knowledge that Moncoutie or Contador were doping. Yet around here, Moncoutie is given the benefit of the doubt in big part because of what Gaumont said, but Contador (when he rode for LS) is not. Why is that?

Still happy to accept a better candidate for our clean cyclist award.

Why do you need one? What's the point in saying "hey I think this or that guy's clean" when there's a fairly decent chance that he's not? Up until about 2001 or so, I thought Armstrong was clean. Up until OP, I thought Ullrich and Basso were clean. Up until the Vuelta of whatever year it was, I thought Hamilton was clean. Up until the '06 Tour, I thought Landis was clean. Etc etc etc.

But to play along, if I had to pick one rider who I thought might be clean, it'd be Moncoutie, hands down. But having learned my lesson not to have "faith" in any rider, I wouldn't be in the least bit shocked or surprised to learn that he wasn't, either.

 

[VeloCity]

It's rather simple, really. If you are presented a post with pics of a platypus by someone who is discussing "the platypus" and all you see is a mammal and you spend all of your efforts trying to cover up the fact that you couldn't recognize a platypus, then you probably missed the point of the discussion. Even if you want to spend the next 734 posts saying that your point is the real point, you still missed the freaking point.

Ironically, you're entirely missing the point.

 

[VeloCity]

You stated Cofidis = doping.

I didn't state that Cofidis = doping, I said that was what Glenn believes.

 

[Mellow Velo]

OK, I'm happy with that.
I think the last few posts gets everyone as close to an agreement here as we are likely to get.

 

[hrotha]

It's not. That's the point. Gaumont says Moncoutie is clean, Fuentes says Contador is clean. All either are really saying is that they don't have personal knowledge that Moncoutie or Contador were doping.

In addition to what I said in my previous post, "he's clean" is not the same as "he's not one of my clients". Gaumont didn't say he didn't have personal knowledge that Moncoutié was doping. He said he was clean. He knew him to be clean. Big difference.

 

[VeloCity]

In addition to what I said in my previous post, "he's clean" is not the same as "he's not one of my clients". Gaumont didn't say he didn't have personal knowledge that Moncoutié was doping. He said he was clean. He knew him to be clean. Big difference.

All Fuentes could say is that Contador wasn't one of his clients (I used "clean" for convenience), but fact is, Fuentes had no idea whether or not Contador was doping.

All Gaumont could say is that he had no personal knowledge that Moncoutie was doping, but fact is, he had no idea whether or not Moncoutie was doping (and has been pointed out previously, Gaumont and Moncoutie were not exactly buddies).

For all either Fuentes or Gaumont knew, both Contador and Moncoutie were doping to the gills, just that neither of them were directly involved in it or had no personal knowledge of it.

 

[pmcg76]

It's not. That's the point. Gaumont says Moncoutie is clean, Fuentes says Contador is clean. All either are really saying is that they don't have personal knowledge that Moncoutie or Contador were doping. Yet around here, Moncoutie is given the benefit of the doubt in big part because of what Gaumont said, but Contador (when he rode for LS) is not. Why is that?
Why do you need one? What's the point in saying "hey I think this or that guy's clean" when there's a fairly decent chance that he's not? Up until about 2001 or so, I thought Armstrong was clean. Up until OP, I thought Ullrich and Basso were clean. Up until the Vuelta of whatever year it was, I thought Hamilton was clean. Up until the '06 Tour, I thought Landis was clean. Etc etc etc.

But to play along, if I had to pick one rider who I thought might be clean, it'd be Moncoutie, hands down. But having learned my lesson not to have "faith" in any rider, I wouldn't be in the least bit shocked or surprised to learn that he wasn't, either.

The difference between Moncoutie and all the other guys you you listed is this. No team-mate, unprovoked, came forward and said they were clean so they are not the same as Moncoutie.

Look at it this, if there is a graph on who is likely doped or not doped with dont know as the centre point. So everyone starts of in the middle but then they ride for a dodgy team, they move into the possibly doping scale. Then if they are riding with the top guys they move to likely doped on the scale. Obviously if they are linked to a doping affair or dodgy doctor, it becomes more sure with a positivie test as absolutely.

So you could say Moncoutie possibly doped because of his team but is named as clean by his doper team-mate that puts him over to the possibly or likely not doping side of the graph. No one is say he is definitely not doped but there are not too many other guys on his side of the graph, right.

 

[hrotha]

Well, if you want to believe that Moncoutié would have kept his doping secret in an environment like Cofidis, where every single rider except for him and Tombak were doping openly, and that he would have fooled everyone by putting up a façade of an anti-doping personality, attracting the derision of his own teammates and the disappointment of his bosses, feel free to do so. Only then would Gaumont's and Fuentes's statements be comparable. Personally I find that story much more unlikely than the more simple one that he was clean.

 

[pmcg76]

All Fuentes could say is that Contador wasn't one of his clients (I used "clean" for convenience), but fact is, Fuentes had no idea whether or not Contador was doping.

All Gaumont could say is that he had no personal knowledge that Moncoutie was doping, but fact is, he had no idea whether or not Moncoutie was doping (and has been pointed out previously, Gaumont and Moncoutie were not exactly buddies).

For all either Fuentes or Gaumont knew, both Contador and Moncoutie were doping to the gills, just that neither of them were directly involved in it or had no personal knowledge of it.

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. How did Gaumont know everyone else was doping except Moncoutie & Tombak.

So Moncoutie either hid doping when he was with his team at races so for example, for three weeks during a GT, he managed to hide his doping from others. Christ, that would make him even better at it than Armstrong who nobodys seems to have doped other than Landis.

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.

The only other alternative is Moncoutie only doped when training.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Ironically, you're entirely missing the point.

Actually, I'd argue that there's little irony involved in my missing the point. You could have argued stupidity, and I'd have been more likely to go along.

However, since pretty much everyone on this thread has been saying about the same thing for the past 4 and a half pages of comments, the true irony may be the thread's utter pointlessness.

 

[python]

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.

it looks to me like you by this long rant missed the point of this thread entirely.

Because the title of this thread is Moncoutie.

the title of the thread is not what glenn wilson sees through velocity eyes.

the title of the thread is not what velocity thinks glen wilson sees through velocity eyes.

again the title of the thread is 'Moncoutie'.

so, what's irrelevant is what you think this thread is about or what your defendant thinks what this thread is about...

it's still about a rider considered by many being probably clean. if you disagree, as i suggested before, put your arguments down. otherwise your circular arguments don't make sense.


regarding your defendant, i find it curious that you never addressed his and your own misrepresentations of the initial, read again INITIAL arguments, when your defendant dodged every reasonable question politely asked.

instead, your defendant uttered (in a thread about moncoutie) ...normandy again.

i asked before, what the hell normandy got to do with the two french riders but i never got an answer.

can you oblige, mr defendant ?

thank you in advance,

python

 

[DirtyWorks]

Teams generally dope together so its known who does what.

Proof please because that claim flies in the face of what is understood.

It's been suggested Pharmstrong's team was 'on gear or off the team.' as mandated by Pharmstrong. This is likely given the 'blue train' performances at the TdF's. Landis' anecdotes, if they are true, also corroborate a single instance of your claim.

It's been suggested that doping most happens like the Landis example. Go to your boss and make him aware you will 'do whatever it takes to win.' At that point, doping technology contact information is passed. Riders are doping individually. It just so happens they are all on a team together. The boss knows who's open to doping, and organizes supplemental PED's for long events. Riders who make it clear they don't dope are left out. This, to me is believable and is corroborated with anecdotes. This is materially different than your generalization though!

 

[Benotti69]

I didn't state that Cofidis = doping, I said that was what Glenn believes.

i already addressed that.

 

[VeloCity]

it looks to me like you by this long rant missed the point of this thread entirely.

Because the title of this thread is Moncoutie.

the title of the thread is not what glenn wilson sees through velocity eyes.

the title of the thread is not what velocity thinks glen wilson sees through velocity eyes.

again the title of the thread is 'Moncoutie'.

so, what's irrelevant is what you think this thread is about or what your defendant thinks what this thread is about...

it's still about a rider considered by many being probably clean. if you disagree, as i suggested before, put your arguments down. otherwise your circular arguments don't make sense.


regarding your defendant, i find it curious that you never addressed his and your own misrepresentations of the initial, read again INITIAL arguments, when your defendant dodged every reasonable question politely asked.

instead, your defendant uttered (in a thread about moncoutie) ...normandy again.

i asked before, what the hell normandy got to do with the two french riders but i never got an answer.

can you oblige, mr defendant ?

thank you in advance,

python

um, the topic thread is "moncoutie".

the entire thread has been about moncoutie.

don't really see the problem here.

btw what do your questions about "the two french riders" have to do with the thread topic? this thread is about moncoutie, not bassons.

and btw, go back and read the early posts. compare and contrast glenn's tone with those - including yours, btw - who jumped all over him for expressing an apparently not so popular generalization.

and sure, i may not agree with hrothra and benotti et al and sure we might get exasperated with one another but i think we've been pretty civil.

on the other hand, you've been pretty f**ing obnoxious and confrontational throughout this thread.

thank you in advance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Title of this thread is Mancoutie NOW. It was never a independent thread. This came from another thread. THERE WAS JUST PICTURES no words with the pictures.

SO again the pictures were posted in reply to another post in another thread. THIS THREAD SPUN OFF from that thread.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Page 12 and Moncoutie is still most likely clean.

A couple of members are unwilling to accept it and keep churning up nonsense that is supposed to pass as legitimate discussion.

This has to go on for another few pages before everyone runs out of enthusiasm and has entirely forgotten the point of the thread was a failed attempt to tear down a likely clean rider. Velocity and Glenn, after having your claims disassembled and discredited, you should have just quit.

See you on page 18.