Moncoutie

[skippythepinhead]

And you still don't know who the rider is, or did you figure out the googler thingie?

 

[Hampsten88]

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).

While an enjoyable and logical response that really wasn't what I was questioning.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Fine,,,, you believe Moncoutie is most likely clean. I said as much in some of my previous posts. I said it is possible he is clean. I also said that Cofidis had a doping structure in the team and it was proven. Who knows if they are that way now?

I thought it was a funny thing to see someone pointing out (with pictures) that Cofidis was clean. When in fact LS meant that Moncoutie was clean. So my original reply to him was off base, It was my fault for going in the wrong direction with it.

 

[VeloCity]

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.

Velocity and Glenn, after having your claims disassembled and discredited, you should have just quit.

What claims? No one ever said Moncoutie was doping. The argument/discussion was (basically) about the double standard of why one rider - in this case, Moncoutie - is given the benefit of the doubt when others in similar situations aren't (for eg, Contador at LS).

And anyway, what are we supposed to be accepting? That Moncoutie is "most likely" clean? Yep, I accept that. I've also said so about 20 times in this thread, and apparently you missed them all. I also believe that what anyone "believes" about any rider is meaningless.

 

[skippythepinhead]

What claims? No one ever said Moncoutie was doping. The argument/discussion was (basically) about the double standard of why one rider - in this case, Moncoutie - is given the benefit of the doubt when others in similar situations aren't (for eg, Contador).

And anyway, what are we supposed to be accepting? That Moncoutie is absolutely, without a doubt clean? If so, then nope, I won't accept that. I believe that he's clean, and obviously you do as well, but what anyone "believes" about any rider is meaningless.

Contador is in a "similar situation"? How, exactly? Are the positive tests similar? Is there a Moncoutie-puerto association of which we are unaware? Has Moncoutie's dramatic rise to being one of the top riders in the world surprised anyone at all? Please drop some of your 411 on the unenlightened and bring your comparison to life.

 

[hrotha]

What claims? No one ever said Moncoutie was doping. The argument/discussion was (basically) about the double standard of why one rider - in this case, Moncoutie - is given the benefit of the doubt when others in similar situations aren't (for eg, Contador at LS).

And anyway, what are we supposed to be accepting? That Moncoutie is "most likely" clean? Yep, I accept that. I've also said so about 20 times in this thread, and apparently you missed them all. I also believe that what anyone "believes" about any rider is meaningless.

It's like my posts on why Moncoutié cannot be compared to Contador or any other pre-positive rider never happened!

 

[python]

um, the topic thread is "moncoutie".

the entire thread has been about moncoutie.

don't really see the problem here.

complete bs. the evidence is in the thread. a few posts ago you argued and chided the multiple posters that... it's irrelevant what the tread is about (would you like to read your own posts, bser) the thread is about cofidis=dopers because that's how you read someone's mind. now you, deflect without realizing that everyone can see you are lying.

i repeat for you, mr, and the troll you defend (yes, i used the word for the first time but i laid out the evidence to back it up) why NORMANDY AGAIN ? what's NORMANDY AGAIN got to do with the two french rider or, specifically moncoutie, the subject of the thread? you still dodge the simple answer...

and btw, go back

untill you go back and read your own misrepresenting peoples opinions, there is little need to tire everyone. people are reasonable enough to read for themselves and they told you what they think. you misrepresented the tread, you misrepresented, peoples arguments, you misrepresented even your defendant.
[...obnoxious and confrontational throughout this thread]sure, calling out misrepresentation in a way that hurts is bound to be uncomfortable. deal with it. but i aid my points pretty civilly, directly and without using the foul language you did. take the high road, dude.

it's your pigheadedness, as velo put it, and your endless circulat nonsensical arguments, that keep dragging this thread.

agree to disagree or gree and go on. stop defending the obvious lack of knowledge as was pointed out by many.

 

[VeloCity]

Contador is in a "similar situation"? How, exactly? Are the positive tests similar? Is there a Moncoutie-puerto association of which we are unaware? Has Moncoutie's dramatic rise to being one of the top riders in the world surprised anyone at all? Please drop some of your 411 on the unenlightened and bring your comparison to life.

Obviously you haven't been reading the thread. I said that Contador being "cleared" by Fuentes while at LS is a similar situation to Moncoutie being "cleared" by Gaumont.

 

[VeloCity]

complete bs. the evidence is in the thread. a few posts ago you argued and chided the multiple posters that... it's irrelevant what the tread is about (would you like to read your own posts, bser) the thread is about cofidis=dopers because that's how you read someone's mind. now you, deflect without realizing that everyone can see you are lying.

i repeat for you, mr, and the troll you defend (yes, i used the word for the first time but i laid out the evidence to back it up) why NORMANDY AGAIN ? what's NORMANDY AGAIN got to do with the two french rider or specifically moncoutie subject of the thread? you still dodge the simple answer...

untill you go back and read your own misrepresenting peoples opinions, there is little need to tire everyone. people are reasonable enough to read for themselves and they told you what they think. you misrepresented the tread, you misrepresented, peoples arguments, you misrepresented even your defendant.
[...obnoxious and confrontational throughout this thread]sure, calling out misrepresentation in a way that hurts is bound to be uncomfortable. deal with it. but i always still direct and civil.

I said that it's irrelevant that the pictures are of Moncoutie. Not that "it's irrelevant what this thread is about". I don't think you're quite getting the nuance. So please stop misrepresenting what I said.

And hey, still belligerent I see. Nice.

 

[VeloCity]

It's like my posts on why Moncoutié cannot be compared to Contador or any other pre-positive rider never happened!

Nope, read all of those. Disagree with them completely - don't think there's much difference at all between Contador being "cleared" by Fuentes and Moncoutie being "cleared" by Gaumont. Maybe they're both lying? Maybe they're both telling the truth? Maybe one is, maybe the other isn't? Maybe they're both telling half-truths? Who knows? I don't. Neither do you. Yet you've chosen to believe Gaumont and not to believe Fuentes. That's fine. Me, I don't really see any reason to believe Gaumont any more than I believe Fuentes. I don't really trust either of them to be telling the whole truth.

But no point in continuing that discussion, I'm willing to agree to disagree.

 

[python]

I said that it's irrelevant that the pictures are of Moncoutie. Not that "it's irrelevant what this thread is about". I don't think you're quite getting the nuance. So please stop misrepresenting what I said.

And hey, still belligerent I see. Nice.

what you said is irrelevant. you are masking poor knowledge as was pointed out to you innumerable times. cofidis doping 8 years ago was not the subject of this thread.

you will have to get used to the fact that ignorance of simple cycling facts on a forum like cn will get called out pretty quickly. that's exactly what happened. deal with that.

you and glen wilsonn tried to changed the subject, including ramming into everyone it was not about what the title said, deflect, misrepresent etc.. by my count about about a dozen of well-meaning, polite posters pointed to the flaws.. you stll continue in a very pigheaded way to seek an upper hand despite all the evidence when it's obvious you embarrass your self with each post.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Obviously you haven't been reading the thread. I said that Contador being "cleared" by Fuentes while at LS is a similar situation to Moncoutie being "cleared" by Gaumont.

That was my bad (I deleted my post). I still don't quite see how the comparison could be made between the two without prefacing the statement with, "If we lived in a world without context,..."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There was NO thread title because the Original Post is from within another thread. ALL I saw was pictures of a cofidis cyclist. My reply on Post #2 removed the quoted pictures and placed with cofidis = doping. That was my point in reply to that post from the thread it was contained in. This MANCOUTIE thread was created from that post from another thread. LS did not create this thread.

It was pointed out after the fact that it was Mancoutie. I then replied that indeed I did not know it was him because all I saw was the Cofidis kit and thus replied.

 

[VeloCity]

That was my bad (I deleted my post). I still don't quite see how the comparison could be made between the two without prefacing the statement with, "If we lived in a world without context,..."

No worries. But what's the context? That Gaumont was a teammate and Fuentes was an auxiliary figure to LS? Still boils down to neither Moncoutie and Contador (at the time) having any evidence of being dopers and both being "cleared" by associated (and questionable) individuals, yet one (Gaumont) is accepted nearly without question as telling the truth while the other (Fuentes) is for all intents and purposes dismissed outright.

For the record, and being as subject to biases etc as anyone else, I don't believe Fuentes whatsoever, and I believe Gaumont more than I do Fuentes - but that's not to say that I trust Gaumont, either.

 

[Escarabajo]

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).

Add one more:

9- Association with dodgy doctor.

 

[skippythepinhead]

No worries. But what's the context? That Gaumont was a teammate and Fuentes was an auxiliary figure to LS? Still boils down to neither Moncoutie and Contador (at the time) having any evidence of being dopers and both being "cleared" by associated (and questionable) individuals, yet one (Gaumont) is accepted nearly without question as telling the truth while the other (Fuentes) is for all intents and purposes dismissed outright.

Really, that Fuentes and Gaumont don't occupy even remotely the same strata of the cycling hierarchy doesn't change the context at all for you? When did Fuentes admit his extensive involvement with doping? Has Fuentes cooperated at all with investigators?

If you're not just trolling, then you're going to have to make a better case that the situations are even remotely comparable.

 

[luckyboy]

MANCOUTIE

Mancoutie

Jesus christ, his name is in the title and everyone else has spelt it correctly. What the **** is wrong with you?

 

[Benotti69]

to make a comment about Contador and Moncoutie as it seems the thread seems to be going in that direction. Contador failed a test. Moncoutie never has. Contador seems to be able to race for 3 weeks without suffering, Moncoutie cant as it would appear is the natural response for the human body. Contador's career has consistently been involved with doping DS's from his Spanish teams to Bruyneel and now Riis. Moncoutie's not. Contador won the TdF in 2009 when blood levels of certain very high placed riders were not consistent with a 3 week race.

It is in my opinion comparing chalk and cheese.

 

[Escarabajo]

Nope, read all of those. Disagree with them completely - don't think there's much difference at all between Contador being "cleared" by Fuentes and Moncoutie being "cleared" by Gaumont. Maybe they're both lying? Maybe they're both telling the truth? Maybe one is, maybe the other isn't? Maybe they're both telling half-truths? Who knows? I don't. Neither do you. Yet you've chosen to believe Gaumont and not to believe Fuentes. That's fine. Me, I don't really see any reason to believe Gaumont any more than I believe Fuentes. I don't really trust either of them to be telling the whole truth.

But no point in continuing that discussion, I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Fair point, but as pointed out by hothra, who do you think has more to gain by pointing the finger at one clean rider or another? That to me is a big difference.

And to be honest we already had some "pre-judgments" on the Contador issue because since 2006 we have seen what he has become. Maybe if after 2006 he returned to cycling and got lost in the Gruppeto we, maybe, could have had an argument of being clean, and we would have believed in Fuentes. On the other hand we get dodgy power outputs, sprinting up the mountain against Rasmussen (Proven doper), Clen issues in 2010 Tour (transfusions), delaying the testers issues (2009 Tour), needles in the trash issues (2009 Tour), beating proven dopers in GT, etc. Because of all this we come back and gather the initial piece of the puzzle that was the Fuentes association and put in together and draw our conclusions.

 

[VeloCity]

Really, that Fuentes and Gaumont don't occupy even remotely the same strata of the cycling hierarchy doesn't change the context at all for you? When did Fuentes admit his extensive involvement with doping? Has Fuentes cooperated at all with investigators?

Fuentes could've just as easily "cleared" Sanchez, Barredo, hell any rider he chose just by saying that he didn't work with that particular rider. So why didn't he? Why only Contador? Possibly because it was true - Fuentes couldn't say that he never worked with the other names because there were records of him working with those other riders. Maybe he felt safe saying that about Contador because there was nothing linking Contador to Fuentes. Doesn't mean for a moment that Contador wasn't doping, though.

And one can say exactly the same thing about Gaumont - Gaumont may be telling the truth as he knows it about Moncoutie. Doesn't for a moment mean that Moncoutie wasn't doping, though.

 

[VeloCity]

to make a comment about Contador and Moncoutie as it seems the thread seems to be going in that direction. Contador failed a test. Moncoutie never has. Contador seems to be able to race for 3 weeks without suffering, Moncoutie cant as it would appear is the natural response for the human body. Contador's career has consistently been involved with doping DS's from his Spanish teams to Bruyneel and now Riis. Moncoutie's not. Contador won the TdF in 2009 when blood levels of certain very high placed riders were not consistent with a 3 week race.

It is in my opinion comparing chalk and cheese.

No question now, years later and looking back, it's obvious that Contador was/is doping. But that's not what the comparison is about - it's about how Gaumont's word re: Moncoutie was taken at face value at the time whereas Fuentes claims about Contador at the time - ie what was it, '06 I think? - were generally not.

 

[hrotha]

No question now, years later and looking back, it's obvious that Contador was/is doping. But that's not what the comparison is about - it's about how Gaumont's word re: Moncoutie was taken at face value at the time whereas Fuentes claims about Contador at the time - ie what was it, '06 I think? - were generally not.

For the nth time - Gaumont was coming clean, Fuentes wasn't (he didn't even admit to doping his clients).

 

[Benotti69]

No question now, years later and looking back, it's obvious that Contador was/is doping. But that's not what the comparison is about - it's about how Gaumont's word re: Moncoutie was taken at face value at the time whereas Fuentes claims about Contador at the time - ie what was it, '06 I think? - were not.

Fuentes was probably asked not to name AC for whatever reason. he didn't name half the Spanish league either. He was not telling the truth that's for sure.

Gaumont had nothing to lose telling the truth

 

[VeloCity]

For the nth time - Gaumont was coming clean, Fuentes wasn't (he didn't even admit to doping his clients).

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?

 

[VeloCity]

you and glen wilsonn tried to changed the subject,

Title of thread: Moncoutie.
Subject of thread: Are there any clean riders?
Forum: Clinic, where doping discussions are posted.
What we have been discussing: Moncoutie and doping.