Moncoutie

[Benotti69]

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.

If Floyd new the Óscar Pereiro was doping and not on the same team in the TdF 2006, team mates sure know what's going on in their own team as they live and work in such close proximity.

 

[blackcat]

If Floyd new the Óscar Pereiro was doping and not on the same team in the TdF 2006, team mates sure know what's going on in their own team as they live and work in such close proximity.

they had been on the same team before tho.

Jaan Kirsipuu said the only top rider who was clean was Thor Hushovd. Phooey!!!

Thor is as bad as the rest. Climbing like a grimpeur in the espoirs with Jamie Burrow. 83 kgs climbing like a sub 70kg grimpeur?

Riders know who has natural talent, and like to confer credulity to their legs. Sylvain Chavanel is nicknamed "the machine" cos he rips the legs off teammates on training camps.

 

[blackcat]

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.

this. Best poster on ALL of internet, behind Race Radio.

 

[hrotha]

this. Best poster on ALL of internet, behind Race Radio.

Meh, he's comparing Moncoutié to the "climbing stars" (which Moncoutié isn't) and basing his whole argument around that. Moncoutié isn't a dominant climber. He wins mostly from breakaways. He stays at or near the front in the Vuelta, with relatively weak fields, but that's it. The closest thing to a "climbing star" performance would be his 2002 Tour, where he was 13th in the GC but was never climbing with the race leaders.

 

[blackcat]

still requires immense recovery to be 13th. You need one breakaway, getting 10 to 20 minutes, and then holding a top 20 on the five climbing mtn top finishes, during the tour. And no days off resting your legs.

 

[hrotha]

still requires immense recovery to be 13th. You need one breakaway, getting 10 to 20 minutes, and then holding a top 20 on the five climbing mtn top finishes, during the tour. And no days off resting your legs.

Yes, of course, 13th is still very good. But while we're all pretty certain it was impossible to win the Tour clean in 2002, we simply know very little about what a clean rider could realistically achieve. You need immense recovery and endurance, but so immense that you can't do it clean? We don't have much specific data, so those of us who think Moncoutié was clean in 2002 have to conclude that yes, it was possible.

 

[VeloCity]

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.

Dude, if you're going to call someone hypocritical, make sure you understand their argument at least. I've stated repeatedly here that I think that Moncoutie is probably clean, but NOT because of what Gaumont says about him. Nor do I believe that Bassons is clean because of what Voet says. I couldn't care less what Voet has to say about Bassons and I couldn't care less what Gaumont says about Moncoutie and I couldn't care less what Fuentes says about Contador because I don't consider any of those people to be reliable, trustworthy sources. That's kind of been my point from the get-go, that a lot of people seem to put a whole lot of faith in what Gaumont says re: Moncoutie.

 

[python]

what you said, velocity, is irrelevant. just like you asserted what others said is irrelevant. you even tried to misrepresent the topic of the thread. otoh, since we've established beyond any reasonable doubt that you've misrepresented what people said, right after they posted, your credibility is very low.


you tried to ram into people what you think glenn wilson thinks yet refuse to answer a simple question - what did he mean by 'normandy again' in relation to moncoutie.

your circular endless arguments make no sense, because they are little more than a dog-chasing-own tail - you say you believe moncoutie and spend more time that anyone in this thread to doubt him. your posting verges on trolling because it seems to have the goal of spinning this thread.

 

[VeloCity]

what you said, velocity, is irrelevant. just like you asserted what others said is irrelevant. you even tried to misrepresent the topic of the thread. otoh, since we've established beyond any reasonable doubt that you've misrepresented what people said, right after they posted, your credibility is very low.


you tried to ram into people what you think glenn wilson thinks yet refuse to answer a simple question - what did he mean by 'normandy again' in relation to moncoutie.

your circular endless arguments make no sense, because they are little more than a dog-chasing-own tail - you say you believe moncoutie and spend more time that anyone in this thread to doubt him. your posting verges on trolling because it seems to have the goal of spinning this thread.

I really, really wish you had better comprehension skills.

 

[Hugh Januss]

what you said, velocity, is irrelevant. just like you asserted what others said is irrelevant. you even tried to misrepresent the topic of the thread. otoh, since we've established beyond any reasonable doubt that you've misrepresented what people said, right after they posted, your credibility is very low.


you tried to ram into people what you think glenn wilson thinks yet refuse to answer a simple question - what did he mean by 'normandy again' in relation to moncoutie.

your circular endless arguments make no sense, because they are little more than a dog-chasing-own tail - you say you believe moncoutie and spend more time that anyone in this thread to doubt him. your posting verges on trolling because it seems to have the goal of spinning this thread.

It is clear by now to anybody that is reading this thread that you and Glenn have history both here and elsewhere, but nobody else really cares. Why don't you just drop it already.

 

[python]

It is clear by now to anybody that is reading this thread that you and Glenn have history both here and elsewhere, but nobody else really cares. Why don't you just drop it already.

please stick to the subject of the thread. velocity took upon himself to interpret glen wilson in a dozem of posts. hence he gets the question.

if you are so clear, than YOU, tell what normandy again has got to do with this thread ? or drop out.

 

[python]

I really, really wish you had better comprehension skills.

i really really wish you stop misrepresenting and amswer simple questions instead of going in circles.

again, for the 9th time, what NORMANDY AGAIN, has got to do with moncoutie doping ?

would you like me to provide the links from this thread where you vehemently and persistently rammed down peoples throats that they missread your defendant ?

why are you silent about the simple question ?

 

[Hugh Januss]

please stick to the subject of the thread. velocity took upon himself to interpret glen wilson in a dozem of posts. hence he gets the question.

if you are so clear, than YOU, tell what normandy again has got to do with this thread ? or drop out.

I have no idea what it means either, and less idea why you even care. I am pretty sure however that it has as little to do with whatever this thread is about (if anything) as this stupid exchange between you and VeloCity does.
But it's from Glenn Wilson so you are on it like a pitbull and somehow this nothing thread has got to almost 230 posts.

 

[python]

I have no idea what it means either, and less idea why you even care. I am pretty sure however that it has as little to do with whatever this thread is about (if anything) as this stupid exchange between you and VeloCity does.
But it's from Glenn Wilson so you are on it like a pitbull and somehow this nothing thread has got to almost 230 posts.

if you have no idea, as you said, than stay away. simple as that (btw, i reported your lame attemps to swing this thread from issues and messages to persons and personalities).

i asked concrete questions and i'm looking for answers. if you don't have them, you need to exit. and leave the scene for those who have them. if you keep adressing my personality instead of my questions, you will have to deal with my responses or mod responses.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Now that everyone has expressed their opinion, often multiple times, and their displeasure with others opinions, often multiple times, does anyone have anything constructive to add to this discussion?

I ask because if you're just going to bicker about what someone else says, further posts will be deleted.

Apparently several of you have a hard time understanding this. So I'll be more direct:

The next person who posts anything directly confrontational, directly about another member, or off-topic will take a long vacation from being able to post.

Consider this a final warning.

 

[pmcg76]

Dude, if you're going to call someone hypocritical, make sure you understand their argument at least. I've stated repeatedly here that I think that Moncoutie is probably clean, but NOT because of what Gaumont says about him. Nor do I believe that Bassons is clean because of what Voet says. I couldn't care less what Voet has to say about Bassons and I couldn't care less what Gaumont says about Moncoutie and I couldn't care less what Fuentes says about Contador because I don't consider any of those people to be reliable, trustworthy sources. That's kind of been my point from the get-go, that a lot of people seem to put a whole lot of faith in what Gaumont says re: Moncoutie.

But here is the deal, Bassons clean reputation came about because Willy Voet said he was the only rider not doping at Festina, this pushed him into the spotlight as a clean rider which gave him the opportunity to write his articles during the 99 Tour, leading to the conflict with his team-mates & Lance. It all started with Willy Voet saying he was clean, otherwise nobody would have been the wiser on what Bassons was up to. So a lot of people based their belief that Bassons was clean based on what Voet said.

Moncoutie was pushed into the spotlight as a clean rider by what Gaumont said, thus he received more publicity, gave a few anti-doping comments and voila, Moncoutie is everybodys favourite clean rider. Again this all came about becasue of what Gaumont said, no other reason.

Before the comments were made by Voet & Moncoutie, there was no reason to believe that either rider was cleaner than say for example Sandy Casar or John Gadret yet neither of these riders have a reputation like Moncoutie or Casar, why not?

You say you believe both riders are clean but what is that belief based on? Most people base it on the reputation that has been built around them and in both cases, this reputation was started with being named as clean by other people(Voet & Gaumont) as being clean.

You can try and twist it wahtever way you want but that is the way it happened.

 

[python]

,snip>
You say you believe both riders are clean but what is that belief based on?
............
You can try and twist it wahtever way you want but that is the way it happened.

that's pretty much what puzzles me.

otoh, he keeps saying he believes moncoutie is clean but then he argues with people who for various reasons believe the same (you eloquently explained your view which seems predominant)

 

[Hugh Januss]

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".

And you say this with such certainty based on what? That they "never tested positive"?

 

[Le breton]

But here is the deal, Bassons clean reputation came about because Willy Voet said he was the only rider not doping at Festina, ...............So a lot of people based their belief that Bassons was clean based on what Voet said.

Moncoutie was pushed into the spotlight as a clean rider by what Gaumont said, ............. Again this all came about becasue of what Gaumont said, no other reason.

Before the comments were made by Voet & Moncoutie, there was no reason to believe that either rider was cleaner than say for example Sandy Casar or John Gadret yet neither of these riders have a reputation like Moncoutie or Casar, why not?

You say you believe both riders are clean but what is that belief based on? Most people base it on the reputation that has been built around them and in both cases, this reputation was started with being named as clean by other people(Voet & Gaumont) as being clean.

You can try and twist it wahtever way you want but that is the way it happened.

I agree with much of what you say, but not everything.

My perception of Bassons - Voet relation is more or less the same as yours.

But for Moncoutié my perception is quite different.

For many years before "Prisonnier du dopage" (2005) Moncoutié had an excellent reputation as a clean rider, in fact since 1999 when I first heard his name (don't think I knew of him in 98). But then, I live on the border with France and read the French newpapers every day, which may not be your case.

I also agree on the fact that Voet's writings must be taken with a grain of salt.

In Gaumont's case, I view things differently. He doped to exist as a pro racing cyclist, but everything I have read about him, the way he was seen by other racers, means to me that he remained fundamentally honest. His doping did not apparently alter his ability to see the reality of things, in this sense he is the opposite of, say, Virenque.

Some people have said on this thread that Gaumont only named Moncoutié and Tombak as clean riders, but the following excerpts, in italics, found on a website, disagree.

Of course, for people who believe in guilt by association, the fact that post-98 Laurent Brochard appears on this list would be an indictment of Moncoutié, but for me what Gaumont has to say is just one more testimony about any of the racers named.

Dans son livre Prisonnier du dopage, Philippe Gaumont estime que la plupart des coureurs se dopent. Il cite néanmoins quelques coureurs qui sont propres, à ses yeux.

Laurent Brochard : "Deux garçons au moins ont été plus courageux que les autres et ont accepté de poursuivre le métier en respectant la nouvelle donne. Laurent Brochard et Didier Rous appartiennent à ma génération et ont été impliqués dans l'affaire Festina. Ils ont reconnu s'être dopés à l'EPO et, aujourd'hui encore, ils sont parfois montrés du doigt pour cela. Pourtant, chacun à leur manière, je crois qu'ils ont changé. Brochard, en silence, a visiblement tout arrêté et Rous a eu la chance de tomber dans une équipe ou il a été soutenu psychologiquement pour effectuer la même démarche."
Yvon Ledannois : "Je pense que parmi nous, Yvon Ledannois - qui ne supportait pas le produit - et Eddy Seigneur - par choix - étaient les seuls à ne pas tourner à l'EPO."
David Moncoutié : ""J'ai passé sept années chez Cofidis et, durant tout ce temps, je n'ai côtoyé que deux coureurs qui ne prenaient pas de produits : l'Estonien Janek Tombak et, surtout, le Français David Moncoutié. A part ces deux-là, les autres discutaient ouvertement du dopage, y compris les jeunes néo-professionnels. L'un d'eux avait même déjà pris de l'EPO en amateur, de la cortisone, de la testostérone et de la créatine."
Didier Rous : "Deux garçons au moins ont été plus courageux que les autres et ont accepté de poursuivre le métier en respectant la nouvelle donne. Laurent Brochard et Didier Rous appartiennent à ma génération et ont été impliqués dans l'affaire Festina. Ils ont reconnu s'être dopés à l'EPO et, aujourd'hui encore, ils sont parfois montrés du doigt pour cela. Pourtant, chacun à leur manière, je crois qu'ils ont changé. Brochard, en silence, a visiblement tout arrêté et Rous a eu la chance de tomber dans une équipe ou il a été soutenu psychologiquement pour effectuer la même démarche."
Eddy Seigneur : "Je pense que parmi nous, Yvon Ledannois - qui ne supportait pas le produit - et Eddy Seigneur - par choix - étaient les seuls à ne pas tourner à l'EPO."
Janek Tombak : ""J'ai passé sept années chez Cofidis et, durant tout ce temps, je n'ai côtoyé que deux coureurs qui ne prenaient pas de produits : l'Estonien Janek Tombak et, surtout, le Français David Moncoutié. A part ces deux-là, les autres discutaient ouvertement du dopage, y compris les jeunes néo-professionnels. L'un d'eux avait même déjà pris de l'EPO en amateur, de la cortisone, de la testostérone et de la créatine."

 

[luckyboy]

Before the comments were made by Voet & Moncoutie, there was no reason to believe that either rider was cleaner than say for example Sandy Casar or John Gadret yet neither of these riders have a reputation like Moncoutie or Casar, why not?

I've seen people post about Gadret being dirty (issoisso here and here - I don't know what he's done or how though). Casar is generally considered clean I'd say, just doesn't get many big results.

 

[Benotti69]

for those who dont think Bassons is clean. Why would he say it knowing that the peloton would turn on him? He was probably getting grief from team mates fro not taking stuff and getting better results or riding better for the team so why put his head above the parapet and risk all that. Then when gunderson had a go at him he could've gone and juiced to prove to the peloton/team he was one of the boys.

Moncoutie being considered clean throughout cycling, as i have not heard the opposite, would not last the length of his career if were not true. There would be a disgruntled cyclist somewhere that would take umbridge that Moncoutie would be receiving what could be considered an unfair image of being clean if he was juicing.

The peloton is not a nice place and the riders are definitely hyprocrits as we have seen in their response to Riccó.

If someone was to come out with another book/article/interview and name John Gadret as clean and no one was to dispute it then why not think him clean?

For those who consider Bassons and Moncoutie dopers you must consider every pro a doper.

 

[patricknd]

In regards to the Bassons issue… It is…Just like Skandar pointed out several months ago, Bassons has sat huddled in a corner for years without saying much of anything. Then Landis (an American) blows the lid off of all this doping issue and then Bassons finds the courage to speak out. It's weak and typical of his mindset to not stay and fight for what he supposedly believed in (clean cycling), while waiting or Landis to lead the way. Sounds like Normandy all over again.

??????? its an opinion not any type of personal attack.

Maybe his timing was coincidence. Although it does seem like normandy again, and I generally found skandar to be quite clever, i'm not convinced that you and he are correct this time.

 

[blackcat]

mr Gilbert,

I rest my case

 

[function]

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"

And you say this with such certainty based on what? That they "never tested positive"?

So you're of the opinion that everyone who wins is a doper, i'm content with agreeing to disagree.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So you're of the opinion that everyone who wins is a doper, i'm content with agreeing to disagree.

Well you are welcome to your opinion, but to me it suggests that you really haven't put very much time and thought into arriving at it.