Moncoutie

[Benotti69]

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.

That is clarity. Well done.

 

[ludwig]

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

There are many many reasons.

1) To educate newbies on the actual nature of the sport. Thanks to the cycling media, most newbies believe that some stage winners are clean while others (eg the ones that get busted) are dirty. Educating people on the true nature of doping and omerta makes them less likely to spread false info on who is clean and who dopes. Otherwise, when you get the doping scandals they are that much worse, because the fans and sponsors have been willfully deceived and feel betrayed.

2) Because the evidence of doping networks and widespread doping is so strong. Fans and sponsors have a right to know more than just what cycling organizations want them to know. If there is no public discussion/knowledge, then where does oversight come from?

There is some small merit to your position but I'm afraid it's unfair to any cyclist who wants to race clean, or who dreams of racing clean, to blithely tolerate any doping/dopers that is not deemed doping by the so-called authorities.

 

[Hampsten88]

There are many many reasons.

1) To educate newbies on the actual nature of the sport. Thanks to the cycling media, most newbies believe that some stage winners are clean while others (eg the ones that get busted) are dirty. Educating people on the true nature of doping and omerta makes them less likely to spread false info on who is clean and who dopes.

2) Because the evidence of doping networks and widespread doping is so strong. Fans and sponsors have a right to know more than just what cycling organizations want them to know. If there is no public discussion/knowledge, then where does oversight come from?

There is some small merit to your position but I'm afraid it's unfair to any cyclist who wants to race clean, or who dreams of racing clean, to blithely tolerate any doping/dopers that is not deemed doping by the so-called authorities.

Thank you for actually responding to my question in a thoughtful manner rather then trying to get off by making thinly veiled attacks, as others do.

Can't we educate them by using examples based on reality and not assumptions? Tell them about Rasmussen, Ricco, Valverde, Meckx, etc. Don't tell them that rider X was on Team Y and may have been coached by Coach Z so he is a doper. My main issue is not people talking about allegations or potential issues, it;s people who claim they "know" rider x doped. That is irresponsible and, as I said earlier, it's not just about cycling, it happens on all sports forums.

 

[Benotti69]

it's not just about cycling,

it happens to be a cycling forum and if you read it you would see other sports are discussed as doping in XC sking

 

[Hugh Januss]

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."



.

Well done, that quacked me up.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thank you for actually responding to my question in a thoughtful manner rather then trying to get off by making thinly veiled attacks, as others do.

Can't we educate them by using examples based on reality and not assumptions? Tell them about Rasmussen, Ricco, Valverde, Meckx, etc. Don't tell them that rider X was on Team Y and may have been coached by Coach Z so he is a doper. My main issue is not people talking about allegations or potential issues, it;s people who claim they "know" rider x doped. That is irresponsible and, as I said earlier, it's not just about cycling, it happens on all sports forums.

Because the larger part of the problem is that the vast majority of dopers are getting away with it. The advantage gained through blood manipulation alone is huge and makes competing without it virtually impossible. When you add in the recovery programs that "Doctors" are putting their riders on it is game over for clean competition.
Just sitting by and watching the UCI weed out the "few bad apples" will never have an effect on the level of doping in cycling.

 

[ludwig]

Thank you for actually responding to my question in a thoughtful manner rather then trying to get off by making thinly veiled attacks, as others do.

Can't we educate them by using examples based on reality and not assumptions? Tell them about Rasmussen, Ricco, Valverde, Meckx, etc. Don't tell them that rider X was on Team Y and may have been coached by Coach Z so he is a doper. My main issue is not people talking about allegations or potential issues, it;s people who claim they "know" rider x doped. That is irresponsible and, as I said earlier, it's not just about cycling, it happens on all sports forums.

Well, again I concede there is some merit to your position insofar as cycling has a right to defend its reputation. However, consider how the boards here work--doping discussion is channelled into one forum. On other forums, you aren't allowed to accuse riders of doping without a positive test/investigation etc.

I can reluctantly agree with keeping discussion in the Clinic, but banning all accusations without a positive test is going too far imho. But the truth is that doping and cycling discussion (I'm talking about race tactics, race predictions) cannot be strictly seperated. Doping is part of cycling strategy and tactics--only a fool would bet on the outcome of a Grand Tour without taking into account which riders are likely to have the best programs and which riders have the doctors and connections to evade positive tests. Teams and DSes have a decisive impact.

Second, this is "The Clinic". People here are (or should be) trying to weed through the propaganda and arrive at informed and educated opinions. Opinions based on inferences and on the reality of doping and omerta in cycling are part of that discussion. It's mere semantics whether an individual stating an opinion 'suspects' or 'knows'.....the only thing that matters is the accuracy of the evidence and conclusions being discussed. As pointed out above, inference is a acceptable means of proceding towards truth; or more accurately, that which is most likely to be true.

Don't tell them that rider X was on Team Y and may have been coached by Coach Z so he is a doper.

But surely you understand that doping is not conducted by individuals, but by a team of men who share a collective self-interest. Identifying the coaches and doctors who facilitate and enable doping is much more important than catching doping atheltes. Furthermore, the most powerful evidence of all that the doping culture is as strong as ever is the "omerta", or the refusal of anyone associated with cycling to speak plainly about doping, or condemn known dopers and doping enablers. Plainly doping is a collective problem, not an individual one, and must be treated as such.

It is a fact on the ground that Bjarne Riis, Johan Bruyneel, and those like them pioneered the doping culture we have today and are major players in keeping it going at present. Based on the multiple and overwelmingly convincing accounts from whistle-blowers, nobody on teams led by Riis or Bruyneel or Saiz or Echevarri in 99-05 could have escaped team doping and/or the ubiquitious doping culture. I don't say that based on firsthand knowledge, but rather based on the overwelming first-hand testimony from multiple whistle-blowers who have no reason to lie. It IS reasonable to implicate riders based on team associations--even Pat McQuaid agrees that progress against doping requires punishing teams and holding more than just individuals responsible for doping offenses.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1) To educate newbies on the actual nature of the sport. Thanks to the cycling media, most newbies believe that some stage winners are clean while others (eg the ones that get busted) are dirty. Educating people on the true nature of doping and omerta makes them less likely to spread false info on who is clean and who dopes. Otherwise, when you get the doping scandals they are that much worse, because the fans and sponsors have been willfully deceived and feel betrayed.

2) Because the evidence of doping networks and widespread doping is so strong. Fans and sponsors have a right to know more than just what cycling organizations want them to know. If there is no public discussion/knowledge, then where does oversight come from?

There is some small merit to your position but I'm afraid it's unfair to any cyclist who wants to race clean, or who dreams of racing clean, to blithely tolerate any doping/dopers that is not deemed doping by the so-called authorities.

I wouldn't consider myself a newbie. But I consider that there are some genuine stage winners who are clean. Maybe not GC men, or front line talents, but there are riders who don't dope out there. Some may have doped in the past but be clean now, some may be clean now but will dope in the future. Yes, character judgement comes into it, along with national cycling cultures, attitudes of the authorities and so on - hence why I'm more willing to believe that Moncoutié or Fedrigo are clean than, say, Pardilla or Ovechkin, to pick two names completely at random.

You say it's unfair to a cyclist who wants to race clean to blithely tolerate doping that isn't considered doping by the authorities, but the point is, what are they to do? What is considered reasonable evidence to say that somebody is clean? Uncovering drug rings? Well, two ways to do that; either by chance thanks to unsolicited contact (eg Xavier Tondó) or have those contacts because of doping yourself (eg Emanuele Sella). If you race clean and don't come into contact with the doping rings, how are you going to get that information? Either your teammates are going to have to discuss doping openly with you (which they don't until they know you're "one of them" - Thomas Frei explained this point very clearly - talking of how many riders who had been quite cagey around him became more open and friendly when it became known amongst riders that he was doping). And even in the case that you uncover these drug rings, is that enough to counter other things (eg Xavier Tondó rode for 2 years on LA-MSS, a notorious doping squad, and many would contend that that cancels out the drug ring shipping, even if he did bypass the cycling authorities and go straight to the police)?

If we eliminate the "busting drug rings" option, then you have coming clean about what you know. However, as doping riders are not likely to be sharing their secrets with clean riders openly (again, go back to Frei) then you are left with the making of accusations based on inference and expectations, or what you've seen (which is liable to be your teammates as you will spend more time with them). And firing out accusations against riders without enough compelling evidence to back it up enough to get the riders banned is a fast way to get yourself ostracised from the péloton, as Christophe Bassons will tell you. Of course, those riders that dope and then blow the whistle get the worst of both worlds, as they get a ban AND get ostracised - just ask Emanuele Sella how many times in 2009 and 10 he ended races with no glory and a jersey covered in spit, or ask Filippo Simeoni about his infamous brush with fame.

If a rider like Moncoutié (making the assumption as I have been doing throughout) is absolutely clean, then his best option is not to enforce omertà per se, but to allow the others to enforce it on him. Riding at his talent level can make him enough to enjoy his career, why should he jeopardise his career to score a cheap political point? He's made comments about the péloton at two speeds before, but you can't really make anything more than vague or cryptic hints without running the risk of alienating people - and considering that he isn't a guy who's about being the hero and rides mainly because it's fun, why would he want to make it no fun anymore?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Can't we educate them by using examples based on reality and not assumptions?

What is wrong with reasoned assumptions?

What is reality? What the UCI tells us? What Armstrong tells us? Kimmage? Landis?

 

[Hugh Januss]

What is wrong with reasoned assumptions?

What is reality? What the UCI tells us? What Armstrong tells us? Kimmage? Landis?

Each person's reality is what they want to believe.

 

[ludwig]

Libertine,

Believe me, there was a stage in my cycling fandom where the most important issue seemed to be determining who the clean riders were, so as to know who we cycling fans should support. So I started a series of threads called "List of Clean Riders"...eg who are the clean riders and how can we support them? From my noob perspective, this seemed like the most productive form of doping discussion. But now I realize these discussions are frequently as divisive and frivolous as you can get...

As you might imagine, these threads consistently turned into a farce. As a rule, claims a rider was 'clean' were primarily based on emotional identifications rather than objective evidence. Naturally, Moncoutie's name always came up in said discussions and was one of the few names most could agree on as a 'clean rider'. But whatever concrete evidence that Moncoutie objected to doping was usually years old and not particuarly convincing imho. Think of why Bradley Wiggins stopped publicly dissing doperz--he percieved that the hypocrisy (eg the fans on sites like this making him out to be a saint) reflected badly on him and his team and was likely to incur the hostility of the peloton. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Moncoutie is in the same boat--of course he wants as many people as possible to believe he is clean but he is not going to **** away his integrity by pulling a Floyd and willfully decieving the believers.

If there was a clean rider in the pro peloton, dont you think they'd be a little ****ed about all the doping? Sometimes people suggest that there are clean riders who won't say anything because if they spoke out they would lose their jobs. Well, lol, what's the practical difference anyway? If you work at a job where everyone takes liberities and cheats the employer, but you say nothing about it because you don't want to alienate your co-workers, well is there really such a big difference between you and the cheaters? If as you say simply riding clean is not something one could publicly take pride in without 'alienating' the omerta, then what is the incentive to ride clean when the doperz clear 500K + a year in contracts?

If being clean isn't something you can sell (since we don't want to hurt the doperz feelings..).....how exactly is a clean rider supposed to make a living? Even David Moncoutie is expected to win a stage once in a while, even if he rides for a French team

Bottom line is....as long as there is omerta then who's to say if there are clean riders? The leading DSes were all known dopers during their glory years. The current dominant riders came up on doping teams and have been loyal soldiers of omerta. All in all, it really doesn't look like clean riders exist--and if they exist, they are basically irrelevant.

All that said....this is idle discussion--the scientific evidence demonstrates a clean rider would have no prayer against a rider using the latest oxygen-vector techniques. And this is why its dangerous to say I shouldn't talk about doping because the rider in question might by some miracle be clean. A supposition like that is sheer will to believe given the state of the peloton, the leadership of the peloton, and what we KNOW about the effect of oxygen-vector doping.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Well, again I concede there is some merit to your position insofar as cycling has a right to defend its reputation. However, consider how the boards here work--doping discussion is channelled into one forum. On other forums, you aren't allowed to accuse riders of doping without a positive test/investigation etc.

I can reluctantly agree with keeping discussion in the Clinic, but banning all accusations without a positive test is going too far imho. But the truth is that doping and cycling discussion (I'm talking about race tactics, race predictions) cannot be strictly seperated. Doping is part of cycling strategy and tactics--only a fool would bet on the outcome of a Grand Tour without taking into account which riders are likely to have the best programs and which riders have the doctors and connections to evade positive tests. Teams and DSes have a decisive impact.

Second, this is "The Clinic". People here are (or should be) trying to weed through the propaganda and arrive at informed and educated opinions. Opinions based on inferences and on the reality of doping and omerta in cycling are part of that discussion. It's mere semantics whether an individual stating an opinion 'suspects' or 'knows'.....the only thing that matters is the accuracy of the evidence and conclusions being discussed. As pointed out above, inference is a acceptable means of proceding towards truth; or more accurately, that which is most likely to be true.



But surely you understand that doping is not conducted by individuals, but by a team of men who share a collective self-interest. Identifying the coaches and doctors who facilitate and enable doping is much more important than catching doping atheltes. Furthermore, the most powerful evidence of all that the doping culture is as strong as ever is the "omerta", or the refusal of anyone associated with cycling to speak plainly about doping, or condemn known dopers and doping enablers. Plainly doping is a collective problem, not an individual one, and must be treated as such.

It is a fact on the ground that Bjarne Riis, Johan Bruyneel, and those like them pioneered the doping culture we have today and are major players in keeping it going at present. Based on the multiple and overwelmingly convincing accounts from whistle-blowers, nobody on teams led by Riis or Bruyneel or Saiz or Echevarri in 99-05 could have escaped team doping and/or the ubiquitious doping culture. I don't say that based on firsthand knowledge, but rather based on the overwelming first-hand testimony from multiple whistle-blowers who have no reason to lie. It IS reasonable to implicate riders based on team associations--even Pat McQuaid agrees that progress against doping requires punishing teams and holding more than just individuals responsible for doping offenses.

Nicely stated. You're a much more patient (and I daresay hopeful) individual than I am. Good post.

 

[VeloCity]

What is wrong with reasoned assumptions?

Seems a might subjective, no?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Seems a might subjective, no?

Only to those who lack reason.

 

[VeloCity]

Only to those who lack reason.

Must be nice to be perfectly neutral and completely without bias. Very impressive. Also complete bs, of course.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Libertine,

Believe me, there was a stage in my cycling fandom where the most important issue seemed to be determining who the clean riders were, so as to know who we cycling fans should support. So I started a series of threads called "List of Clean Riders"...eg who are the clean riders and how can we support them? From my noob perspective, this seemed like the most productive form of doping discussion. But now I realize these discussions are frequently as divisive and frivolous as you can get...

Of course they are. But that reads like you're patronising me (like I haven't yet reached the level of understanding yet to accept that clean riders do not, or cannot, exist). Which I know was not the intention, but I don't believe that the sport is impossible to compete in at some level without using banned PEDs (note modifier).

As you might imagine, these threads consistently turned into a farce. People talking about the riders they think are clean are primarily talking about the riders they WISH were clean. Nobody seemed capable of providing any concrete reason to believe their favored rider was clean.

Of course. I wanted to believe Astarloza's protestations of innocence not because I thought they were true but because I wanted him to be clean. But there is a level of what you want to believe and what you genuinely do believe. I want to believe that Alejandro Valverde was clean from Puerto to his eventual sanction. He was targeted for testing, and the number of wins, race wins and jersey wins mean he was tested as much as everybody, and came back negative every time. But I don't believe Alejandro Valverde was a clean racer. Nobody shy of Valverde himself can truly believe that. I met Patrik Sinkewitz and thought he was a really nice guy. This was after his suspension. I wanted it to be a mistake when he tested positive again and I wanted him to come clean like he did the first time. But I could never say that I was surprised when he tested positive again. I would genuinely be surprised if Moncoutié tested positive, and not for the same reason that I would genuinely be surprised if one of the Hog's protected circle tested positive.

Naturally, Moncoutie's name always came up in said discussions and was one of the few names most could agree on as a 'clean rider'. But whatever concrete evidence that Moncoutie objected to doping was usually years old and not particuarly convincing imho. Think of why Bradley Wiggins stopped publicly dissing doperz--he percieved that the hypocrisy (eg the fans on sites like this making him out to be a saint) reflected badly on him and his team and was likely to incur the hostility of the peloton. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Moncoutie is in the same boat--of course he wants as many people as possible to believe he is clean but he is not going to **** away his integrity by pulling a Floyd and willfully decieving the believers.

But the thing is, if Moncoutié IS clean, which I am willing to believe, then publicly dissing dopers is either counterproductive (if all you talk about is doping it only perpetuates the 'cycling talk is all about doping' myth) or incurs the wrath of the péloton, or both. It is possible to exist as a clean rider within the péloton if you are willing to not rock the boat and don't care too much if you don't win very often. Characteristics which Moncoutié undoubtedly fulfils.

If there was a clean rider in the pro peloton, dont you think they'd be a little ****ed about all the doping? Sometimes people suggest that there are clean riders who won't say anything because if they spoke out they would lose their jobs. Well, lol, what's the practical difference anyway? If you work at a job where everyone takes liberities and cheats the employer, but you say nothing about it because you don't want to alienate your co-workers, well is there really such a big difference between you and the cheaters? One would think that if there was a clean rider in the pro peloton, then he would have enough pride in his accomplishments to make it known.

It depends how much they care about victory. Some riders are very results driven. Others will get in breakaways to enjoy the futility, ride for fun. Cycling is a job, but it's a job many would kill for. There are a lot of people out there who just enjoy the ride and don't have too many expectations. You make the assumption that not only is cycling a true meritocracy, but that everybody seeks to improve their position in that meritocracy. Many riders are happy in their niche. See people like Cândido Barbosa or Przemysław Niemiec, who stayed crushing people in small scenes when they could easily have stepped up.

The argument about being a conduit to tacitly accepting doping is a valid one, but also it is worth noting that cycling is a pack sport. We don't know how many clean cyclists there are in the pro péloton. There could be none at all, there could be just Moncoutié and Fedrigo, there could be loads. If you are the only guy speaking out to the employer to say what's happening, then they've got to investigate before they visit sanctions, and you've got to continue working in an environment where you're hated. Again using the assumption that Moncoutié is clean, maybe he simply values that his job satisfaction is higher being quiet and vague on the subject and getting on with people than being noisy and drawing attention to doping (yet again, something he's sick of talking about) and having people around him hate his guts. Remember, he's watched what happened to Bassons and Simeoni, why would you want to follow in those footsteps? He doesn't want to be a hero, he just wants to race his bike.

Plus, why should he continue to draw attention to doping by repeating the same thing over and over when he's already said it, and why should he make a big fuss over racing clean when other people are already doing it for him?

But if being clean is just your little secret, I would think the temptation to dope and start competing with the best would be too overwelming, if as you say simply riding clean is not something one could publicly take pride in without 'alienating' the omerta.

Again, this is assuming that you are results- and competition-driven. Moncoutié by his own admission is not.

Bottom line is....as long as there is omerta then who's to say if there are clean riders? The leading DSes were all known dopers during their glory years. The current dominant riders came up on doping teams and have been loyal soldiers of omerta. All in all, it really doesn't look like clean riders exist--and if they exist, they are basically irrelevant.

All that said....this is idle discussion--the scientific evidence demonstrates a clean rider would have no prayer against a rider using the latest oxygen-vector techniques. And this is why its dangerous to say I shouldn't talk about doping because the rider in question might by some miracle be clean. A supposition like that is sheer will to believe given the state of the peloton and the leadership of the peloton.

The scientific evidence Bavarianrider pulled out the other day demonstrated that a heavier rider would have an advantage over a lighter rider in the mountains because of needing fewer w/kg. But as we know from watching races, there are more factors at play. There are more factors at play than just the science. There's racing brain, there's natural talent, there's strength of the team and other riders around you.

The scientific evidence only demonstrates that a clean rider would have no prayer against a rider using the latest oxygen-vector techniques if all of these other factors are equal.

Besides, Moncoutié usually wins from a breakaway, and usually loses plenty of time to the more-likely-to-be-doped heads of state group en route.

 

[ludwig]

Libertine,

Far be it from me to speculate on Moncoutie and whatever his true motives and motivations may be. As far as I'm concerned the guy has a right to his privacy. But he would start to forfeit those rights if he came out and claimed he was clean in a way that went beyond mere omerta. But as we know he has not...at least for some years.

I guess what makes me extra skeptical is the fact that there is very little precedence for a clean rider doing so well on mountain stages as Moncoutie does. Think of the dominant mountain stage riders of years past---Simoni, Piepoli, Jalabert etc. Can you think of any example from 1995-2010 of another climbing star who is believed to be dope-free? Why is it that people believe a non-doper can suddenly shine on one stage vrs. dopers...where is the evidence that this is possible?

It would be accurate to say that if Moncoutie is clean, then he deserves far more recognition for his achievements, and the people around him would be compelled to make this known. You suggest he's only reticent because of modesty...well, that's very convenient.

As far as I'm concerned, these "guilt-by-association" inferences are only valid as far as they are backed up by concrete evidence that a doper will have a huge advantage over a non-doper. There is science to back that up, yeah, but the the testimonies of the whistle blowers are a good deal more compelling imho.

All in all I don't believe in cases like Moncoutie for the reasons I've outlined. But if by some miracle it were true that Moncoutie is clean, then surely Moncoutie is the exception that proves the rule, rather than the exception that is the rule. He would certainly be a paragon of modesty if he could tolerate getting stomped by dopers whose talent is far less than his year after year.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Must be nice to be perfectly neutral and completely without bias. Very impressive. Also complete bs, of course.

Nice to see you take a pattern out of whole cloth, and presume it's tailored to you. Must be nice to be completely self-absorbed...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Libertine,

Far be it from me to speculate on Moncoutie and whatever his true motives and motivations may be. As far as I'm concerned the guy has a right to his privacy. But he would start to forfeit those rights if he came out and claimed he was clean in a way that went beyond mere omerta. But as we know he has not...at least for some years.

Maybe he values his privacy more than he values public knowledge of his integrity. After all, his reputation is already built, he has little need to push that reputation because most people accept it.

I guess what makes me extra skeptical is the fact that there is very little precedence for a clean rider doing so well on mountain stages as Moncoutie does. Think of the dominant mountain stage riders of years past---Simoni, Piepoli, Jalabert etc. Can you think of any example from 1995-2010 of another climbing star who is believed to be dope-free?

Of course, but in rebuttal I point out two things:
1) Moncoutié is NOT a dominant mountain stage rider. He has wins, sure, but when you get the big, dramatic climbs that settle the Grand Tours, either he's in the breakaway or he's nowhere to be seen. The three you named would be dropping all the big stars. Moncoutié has won races by dropping the likes of Serafín Martínez, Olivier Kaisen and Gorka Verdugo. It's a whole different ballpark.
2) Maybe the péloton hasn't become clean, and maybe just as many people are doping now as were in 2001. But it's feasible that as testing has improved, the dopers are now doping with smaller amounts - the likes of Frei microdosing and the miniscule Contador clen amounts lend credence to this. The dopers are still doping, but they're doing less in order to still get away with it. Thus closing the gap between clean riders and themselves and making it more possible for a clean rider to get wins and put together results, but not enough for them to win GTs and major races.

It would be accurate to say that if Moncoutie is clean, then he deserves far more recognition for his achievements, and the people around him would be compelled to make this known. You suggest he's only reticent because of modesty...well, that's very convenient.

Not only modesty, but an unwillingness to be made an example of the way Bassons and Simeoni were - which I guess includes an aspect of fear. It may also be apathy. He's not very motivated by competition by his own admission. A guy who is not motivated by competition is less likely to be willing to dope to beat it.

As far as I'm concerned, these "guilt-by-association" inferences are only valid as far as they are backed up by concrete evidence that a doper will have a huge advantage over a non-doper. There is science to back that up, yeah, but the the testimonies of the whistle blowers are a good deal more compelling imho.

All in all I don't believe in cases like Moncoutie for the reasons I've outlined. But if by some miracle it were true that Moncoutie is clean, then surely Moncoutie is the exception that proves the rule, rather than the exception that is the rule. He would certainly be a paragon of modesty if he could tolerate getting stomped by dopers whose talent is far less than his year after year.

I never suggested he was anything more than an exception that proves the rule. But look at how he got his wins. He didn't climb as fast as the GC men, he just happened to have a big headstart, and they were too busy dealing with one another to care about chasing him down. Also, because they were racing tactically they wouldn't have been going 100% all the time and were accelerating and decelerating according to moves, while he was able to ride tempo solo, which is always advantageous.

In 2008 he won on Pla de Beret - not a particularly challenging climb - as the contenders marked each other out of it. He would have been caught by Contador, Valverde and Antón if the climb was a bit longer. In 2009 he won on Sierra Nevada when nobody was bothered about chasing him - Valverde was happy to let him go, and the others didn't want to drag Valverde to the line when he'd beat them to the bonus seconds. I just don't see anything freakish about his winning races from breaks that suggest he must be doping.

 

[Benotti69]

...
..
It would be accurate to say that if Moncoutie is clean, then he deserves far more recognition for his achievements, and the people around him would be compelled to make this known. You suggest he's only reticent because of modesty...well, that's very convenient.

....

If they made a great show of having a clean winner what would that say about the rest of the peloton? That would go down a storm. That would be the end of any victories for that team as what would happen is the omerta would do a Gunderson job just like he did on Simeoni every time a cofidis went up the road.

i do believe that riders who ride clean have a very hard time to publicise that because the omerta interpret that as saying the rest are not and that is considered spitting in the soup.

 

[roundabout]

What's the point of touting one's cleanness when there're many people who

1. would doubt even Moncoutie as evidenced by this thread

2. still believe (suspected for the lack of better term) dopers

what would be the gain?

 

[blackcat]

I put Moncoutie in the realm of Gilbert. Good branding and public perception. See: Chris Hedges on Obama. Manhattan's Ad Industry gave Obama best campaign o' '010. I think Moncoutie might have helped get by, a little management of hormone levels. Not as much as Gilbert. Gilbert got on a decent program post FDJ, prior, he was just hormone balancing, or recovery therapy. </eyesroll>

my own opinions only, absolutely no evidence, except a confirmation of the microcosm worldview (dichotomy?) by two ex pros on PT squads.

 

[function]

Analogies

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."

These types of analogies used to support a viewpoint sometimes make no sense. The difference here being that a doped world class athlete and a clean one have a lot in common even performance wise, so they both "quack". It's just that one may benefit from their doping on a given day. This hasn't stopped clean riders from still winning though. Unless you call winning"quacking".

 

[Pantani_lives]

Moncoutié's clean reputation is probably deserved. Gaumont wrote that he was one of the few clean Cofidis riders.

 

[pmcg76]

Moncoutié's clean reputation is probably deserved. Gaumont wrote that he was one of the few clean Cofidis riders.

Yet this is what the last ten pages have been about, we have one person arguing that Gaumont has no possible way of knowing if Moncoutie doped.
This beside the fact that the same person has stated in another thread that they believed Bassons was clean despite the fact that it was Willy Voet who named Bassons as being clean. To me these situations are exactly the same with a convicted doper naming a clean rider in their team. To me that is completely hypocritical to believe in one but not the other.

We have a few arguing that Moncoutie is doped becaue he is a pro-cyclist, the "everyone dopes brigade" but at least they are being consistent in their argument.

I am sure if all cycling fans were asked to put money on a rider that they thought might be clean, they would all go for Moncoutie and much of this faith is based on Gaumont's statement and Moncoutie's subsequent performances.