Money Laundering & Doping In Italy. Armstrong, Menchov named

[Love the Scenery]

If riders and teams are dependant on bankers to keep up the Omerta they are in real trouble. They will rat everyone out if it will keep themselves out of jail

The bankers are an interesting aspect of the Ferrari network. According to Gazzetta, the way it worked was, sports agent Scimone signed the agents to image rights contracts with T&F Sports Management, based in Monaco. These contracts were NOT registered with the UCI. Teams including Lampre and Astana made large payments directly to T&F Sports Management in Monaco. The money could then be transferred to accounts at UBS-Neuchâtel and BSI-Locarno, since the named bankers were friends of Scimone. Ferrari would travel in his camper van to St. Moritz, where he would be paid with cash withdrawals from the collaborating bank accounts. The money was then smuggled back into Italy, with corresponding doping products crossing the border in the reverse direction.

At least that's how I understand it. The end result is that money went by this roundabout means from Astana, Lampre (Scarponi), etc. to Dr. Ferrari and his network's PED suppliers.

 

[EarnstMorrissey]

How about some non-Armstrong/Sky talk.

So Scarponi and Visconti are going to get 3 month bans over winter. Do you think they made any meaningful testimony? Or are sticking to the "Just had a few tests" line used by the likes of Evans and Rogers? (I know they are in public). It is a bit of a joke.

CONI says they might revisit the case, but how much access do they have to the information from Padua, does Scarponi know there's big bombshells coming? Sure he's getting his suspension out of the way, but this is pretty much an admission of guilt. It is impossible that he (Along with Visconti, Pozzato and whoever else) didn't know that Ferrari is banned, they still took the risk.

I take it that this does not account as a second offense for Scarponi? Really, having worked with Fuentes and now Ferrari, I'd want a lengthy/life ban for him. Unless he gave a significant amount of evidence on people further up the food chain.

Looking forward to alot of answers once the investigation is concluded.

 

[Krebs cycle]

To ferminal and the hitch, thought you guys might remember the time I said that I thought Menchov was more suspicious than Cadel and both of you responded by saying that you thought Menchov was more or less "normal"....

I find Menchov's performance history interesting more suspicious than Evans though. He has had pretty big ups and downs within a season on a few occasions and even his ITT results vary quite a bit.

I dont see why Menchovs performances are that suspicious in themselves anyway. He is a pure gt rider who for most of his career has had 1 good gt a year. 1 or 2 exceptions but generally that, until 2012 when he was 34.

Menchov won GTs in 2007 and 2009 but not 2008, hmm

He is dodgy for what we know of him off the bike, nothing about his performances/progression which makes him suspicious above any other GT contender who stepped up in the mid-2000s.

Well done lads. Glad to see your PEDs radar is working so well

 

[Ferminal]

?

You appear to have misunderstood the point I made.

That you only just worked out that Menchov is a doper is amusing though.

 

[ElChingon]

Looking forward to alot of answers once the investigation is concluded.

The Omerta works in pretty obvious ways, the case will never conclude, but do expect mini conclusions for pretty much forever.

 

[EarnstMorrissey]

The Omerta works in pretty obvious ways, the case will never conclude, but do expect mini conclusions for pretty much forever.

Well we got some pretty conclusive stuff from the USADA investigation. Obviously this is different, but one can always hope. Even if it doesn't reach any conclusions on doping-related matters, it could provide some good leads for future investigations (like the federal postal case). Who knows who they'll crack?

 

[Krebs cycle]

?

You appear to have misunderstood the point I made.

That you only just worked out that Menchov is a doper is amusing though.

Oh no, I thought Menchov was suspicious about 5 or 6yrs ago. Amusing that you thought I just worked it out though.

If you're point was that you think Menchov is a doper, but not from his performances then yes, I missed that. But if you think Menchov's performances are not suspicious in themselves, then I find it strange that you are on the Wiggins is doping bandwagon, when his ITT performances over the years have been far more consistent than Menchov's.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

How about some non-Armstrong/Sky talk.

So Scarponi and Visconti are going to get 3 month bans over winter. Do you think they made any meaningful testimony? Or are sticking to the "Just had a few tests" line used by the likes of Evans and Rogers? (I know they are in public). It is a bit of a joke.

USADA gave a very poor example by offering the "the gun to the head doping confessors" 6 months off season bans. Clearly CONI would always go one lower even for 2nd offense Scarponi who came in voluntarily and gave a statement. Farcical.

We are back to normal operation in the sport. Doping pays big times.

 

[Ferminal]

Oh no, I thought Menchov was suspicious about 5 or 6yrs ago. Amusing that you thought I just worked it out though.

If you're point was that you think Menchov is a doper, but not from his performances then yes, I missed that. But if you think Menchov's performances are not suspicious in themselves, then I find it strange that you are on the Wiggins is doping bandwagon, when his ITT performances over the years have been far more consistent than Menchov's.

What does Wiggins have to do this lol?

I don't even know where the post you quoted me in came from.

Do you have a point to make or just trying to +1 me?

If you want to discuss Menchov in a rebuttal of my quoted post (which I still stand by) then please tell me which performances of his deserve more suspicion than any performance by Sanchez, Valverde, Evans, Andy and Frank, Sastre, Leipheimer?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

One of these is not like the others...

If you're point was that you think Menchov is a doper, but not from his performances then yes, I missed that. But if you think Menchov's performances are not suspicious in themselves, then I find it strange that you are on the Wiggins is doping bandwagon, when his ITT performances over the years have been far more consistent than Menchov's.

And again Big Ring since you clearly don't get it..... I am not defending Wiggins.

I feel as though Wiggins has become completely irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not even defending Wiggins anymore. I'm defending science, logic and reason against the dark forces of irrationality.

Glad to see you're not defending Wiggins, Krebs Cycle. Or something.

 

[Krebs cycle]

What does Wiggins have to do this lol?

I don't even know where the post you quoted me in came from.

Do you have a point to make or just trying to +1 me?

If you want to discuss Menchov in a rebuttal of my quoted post (which I still stand by) then please tell me which performances of his deserve more suspicion than any performance by Sanchez, Valverde, Evans, Andy and Frank, Sastre, Leipheimer?

I would say that Evans is the least suspicious in that entire list. His ITT performances have consistently been strong over many years. In several seasons he has placed top 5 in two consecutive GTs.

Look at Menchov's GT palmares... up down up down up down almost every year since 2005 with the exception of 2008 and where he had consistency across 2 consectutive GTs. 2005: 85th in the tour then 1st in the vuelta. 2009: 1st in the giro then 51st in the tour. 2010: 2nd in the tour then 41st in the giro. Through those years in some ITTs he is amongst the best, but at other times he is way way off the pace. Most of the others on that list also have big ups and downs. I always thought Sastre was a good guy until he suddenly disappeared from the top 10 altogether after parting ways with Riis. Neither of the Shleck bros has placed top 5 in two consecutive GTs ever. Like Sastre, Leipheimer suddenly disappears from the top 10 altogether after years with Armstrong and Bruyneel. Valverde is a proven doper.


Compare that to Evans. Every year since 2005 he has placed top 10 in a GT and whilst he had 2 poor showings in the tour in 2009 and 2010 due to injury, illness and psychological stress, (but still not as poor as Menchov's) he still demonstrated strong and consistent performance across those seasons. There is no regular pattern of up and down within a season. Virtually all of the others on that list had giant drops in performance when they moved away from a heavy doping team. Cadel has changed teams now on 2 occasions and his performance level has stayed about the same.

I'm bringing this up because you felt the need to question me on the subject of Menchov vs Evans but it has now become a matter of proven fact that Menchov is dirty.

 

[Krebs cycle]

One of these is not like the others...


Glad to see you're not defending Wiggins, Krebs Cycle. Or something.

*yawn* another broken down record. just keep truckin on with your little fantasy world there poor wiggo

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Look at Menchov's GT palmares... up down up down up down almost every year since 2005 with the exception of 2008 and where he had consistency across 2 consectutive GTs.

Yes of course. Because being up and down is a sure sign of doping, whereas dominating multi-stage races from February to July after being a nobody autobuser in said races is quite plainly an indication of sparkling cleanliness.

This is the same argument David Millar used in his infinite wisdom of declaring Contador clean as his performances were so consistent. Clenbutador!

Another stunning display of PhD sciency stuff. Chapeau, Krebs Cycle.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm bringing this up because you felt the need to question me on the subject of Menchov vs Evans but it has now become a matter of proven fact that Menchov is dirty.

No, it's been known that Menchov is a doper (in Klöden terms) for several years.

I would say that Evans' is the least suspicious in that entire list. His ITT performances have consistently been strong over many years. In several seasons he has placed top 5 in two consecutive GTs.

2006:

1. [UKR] HONCHAR Serhiy TMO 1h07'45"
2. [GER] KLÖDEN Andreas TMO 41"
7. [AUS] EVANS Cadel DVL 03'41"

2007:

1. [AUS] EVANS Cadel PRL 1h07'48"
2. [GER] KLÖDEN Andreas AST 25"

Woah, a 3.5 minute turnaround on uberdoper Klöden, this is 100% proof of Evans doping!

What about this a year later, getting done for a minute by the amazing TT'ers Kirchen and CVV

2008:

1. [SUI] CANCELLARA Fabian CSC 1h04'11"
2. [LUX] KIRCHEN Kim THR 40"
3. [USA] VANDE VELDE Christian TSL 44"
4. [GBR] MILLAR David TSL 01'16"
5. [RUS] MENCHOV Denis RAB 01'34"
6. [AUS] EVANS Cadel SIL 01'44"

Yeh, real consistency there.

2009:

1. [SUI] CANCELLARA Fabian SAX 36'41"
2. [GBR] MILLAR David GRM 32"
3. [GER] GRABSCH Bert THR 36"
4. [ESP] HERRERO LLORENTE David XGZ 40"
5. [BLR] KIRYIENKA Vasil GCE 46"
6. [ESP] SANCHEZ GONZALEZ Samuel EUS 47"
7. [USA] DANIELSON Tom GRM 50"
8. [FRA] RIBLON Christophe ALM 53"
9. [NED] BOOM Lars RAB 59"
10. [AUS] EVANS Cadel SIL 01'02"

Tom Danielson lol.

Let's not forget the magic of 2011 shall we?

June 2011:

1. [GER] MARTIN Tony THR 55'27"
2. [GBR] WIGGINS Bradley SKY 11"
3. [NOR] BOASSON HAGEN Edvald SKY 43"
4. [USA] ZABRISKIE David GRM 58"
5. [SLO] BRAJKOVIC Janez RSH 01'17"
6. [AUS] EVANS Cadel BMC 01'20" (56'47")

July 2011:

1. [GER] MARTIN Tony THR 55'33"
2. [AUS] EVANS Cadel BMC 07" (55'40")

6 weeks later his time improves by a whole minute, at the end of a GT! Not only that but he's almost on par with the World's #1 TT'er Martin, and the #1 stage racing TT'er, Wiggins.

Menchov 2005: 1st 1st 4th in Vuelta chronos when he won the race
Menchov 2006: 9th and 16th in the Tour (but he finished 7th GC)
Menchov 2007: 4th and 2nd when he won the Vuelta
Menchov 2008: 5th and 5th finishing 4th in the Tour
Menchov 2009: 1st and 1st (10th) winning the Giro
Menchov 2010: #1 of GC contenders finishing 3rd in the Tour

So suspicious! At least compared to the amazingly consistent record of Evans. Again, my point isn't that Evans is more suspicious (and I apologise for singling Evans out), but you can look at anyone's record and pretend it fits your viewpoint with relative ease. What is there in Menchov's history that makes him welcome of suspicion above the others, now that we've debunked the myth that he is an inconsistent TT'er?

In several seasons he has placed top 5 in two consecutive GTs.

Does that mean Contador was clean in 2011? It's impossible to say being consistent over the course of a year or in consecutive GTs makes someone more or less likely to be a doper. But sticking with the games - Menchov was very strong in four consecutive GTs (Tour 2007 - Tour 2008).

Btw the quote is factually incorrect, Evans' record is as follows:

2005: Tour 8th
2006: Tour 5th
2007: Tour 2nd Vuelta 4th
2008: Tour 2nd
2009: Tour 29th Vuelta 3rd
2010: Giro 5th Tour 25th
2011: Tour 1st
2012: Tour 7th

So the "several seasons he has placed top5 in consecutive GTs"... is actually one season. Which is the same number of times as Menchov, who did the Giro-Tour 5th and 4th (historically the much harder double).

Looking back I've found some great names who were very strong in consecutive GTs: Basso, Savoldelli, Heras, Beloki added to the aforementioned Contador and Sastre (though we think he's clean, don't we?). What about Pantani? Armstrong's 12th and 3rd wasn't bad, and he used blood bags in both races! So many dopers... I'm confused

 

[ultimobici]

Who was Wiggo working for in 2010? Dr Skoda? He he.

Funny thing is Skoda is more successful in Motorsport than Ferrari could ever could hope to be.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Funny thing is Skoda is more successful in Motorsport than Ferrari could ever could hope to be.

I think you need to qualify that remark

 

[Aapjes]

I think you need to qualify that remark

Skoda has been more succesful in rallying than Ferrari has in F1, I think. I suspect that is what he's talking about.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Yes of course. Because being up and down is a sure sign of doping, whereas dominating multi-stage races from February to July after being a nobody autobuser in said races is quite plainly an indication of sparkling cleanliness.

This is the same argument David Millar used in his infinite wisdom of declaring Contador clean as his performances were so consistent. Clenbutador!

Another stunning display of PhD sciency stuff. Chapeau, Krebs Cycle.

response taken to the Sky thread.....

 

[Krebs cycle]

snip for brevity...

So suspicious! At least compared to the amazingly consistent record of Evans. Again, my point isn't that Evans is more suspicious (and I apologise for singling Evans out), but you can look at anyone's record and pretend it fits your viewpoint with relative ease. What is there in Menchov's history that makes him welcome of suspicion above the others, now that we've debunked the myth that he is an inconsistent TT'er?

Actually what you just posted there shows that in virtually every one of those ITTs Evans is within, or very close to (ie: time behind the winner), the coefficient of variation for laboratory ITT performance of that length which is about 3%. So in actual fact you pretty much just proved my point that Evans has been consistent in ITTs over the years. You didn't post any results for Menchov so you didn't "debunk" that myth. I suppose I didn't either and I can't really be bothered going through all of Menchov's ITT results. I remember in the past seeing some big swings in his ITT performances, but I haven't double checked and I admit I could be wrong.... hence.....

what I will say though and I strongly agree with you on this, is what I bolded above. You may have noticed that for months now, I have been using this exact same reasoning wrt the Wiggins debate (hence its relevance). From the very beginning, I stated that GC placings are not the best way to determine if someone is doping or not because of the influence of team strategy. However, if you remove that influence and look at ITT performance alone OR hill climbing performance (which is still confounded by the effects of drafting and also not knowing exact times over certain sections of the climb) then this is a better indicator of an individual's level of consistency. There is a vast array of data that shows elite athletes across a wide range of events, exhibit very low variability of performance (against the clock) across a season. Picking out one spurious result here or there (such as what poor wiggo keeps doing) is a flawed approach. The best way is to look at many performances. Those athletes that seem to have higher variability against the clock in many performances IMO are more likely to be the dopers. The problem of course is that we aren't dealing with a lab. The course and environmental conditions play a role in avg velocity so we have to compare against some other rider (or the winner), but maybe that other rider is doping themselves??

Does that mean Contador was clean in 2011? It's impossible to say being consistent over the course of a year or in consecutive GTs makes someone more or less likely to be a doper. But sticking with the games - Menchov was very strong in four consecutive GTs (Tour 2007 - Tour 2008).


Looking back I've found some great names who were very strong in consecutive GTs: Basso, Savoldelli, Heras, Beloki added to the aforementioned Contador and Sastre (though we think he's clean, don't we?). What about Pantani? Armstrong's 12th and 3rd wasn't bad, and he used blood bags in both races! So many dopers... I'm confused

I think it is possible that Contador was clean in 2011 because in 2009 he was climbing at speeds that are considered to be unphysiological, but in 2011 he slowed down to speeds that are considered to be humanly possible. Looking back you need to include the effect of the biopassport which was introduced in 2010. Before then, the incidence of extreme blood profiles is much higher, which generally indicates a greater level of blood manipulation. Pre 2000 it was easy to perform well in consecutive GTs because EPO use was unrestricted. From 2000-2009 it got harder and the shift to transfusions occurred. From 2010 it has become really hard unless you are actually clean (or just doping less).

As stated, I feel as though we have touched on something we agree upon here though. I'm just as confused as you... if not more.... at the accusations that get thrown around in the clinic. Virtually every accusation around here simply looks at rider's GC record, which as you have stated can easily be fitted to some preconceived bias that they are doping. You have basically just used my own argument (that GC placing is not the best indicator of doping because you can fit whatever scenario you want to it) on myself. I accept that and this is why I prefer to look at general trends across a group in order to come to the conclusion that cycling has gradually become cleaner since 2010. The main reason I think Cadel is clean is because he is producing about the same w/kg now that he was when he was 22-23yrs old or thereabouts. He never magically improved this value and ended up winning the TdF by a solid margin as a result prior to 2010. He only won after a general trend occurred in which the average performance of the top 10-20 GC contenders or so became slower than it was only 3 or 4 yrs ago. What could possibly be the reason for that? Why are the best riders (not just one or two individuals but the entire top 10) going slower now than the top 10 from several years ago? Are the best riders o fhte last 2-3yrs just physiologically inferior? or maybe their doping programs are inferior? If the latter is the case then it is a step in the right direction because it allows the best of the best clean riders to actually compete and win. As of 2013 I believe that anyone who wins a GT could be clean.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Looking back you need to include the effect of the biopassport which was introduced in 2010.

BP was introduced in 2008. Or are you trying to rewrite history?

 

[ElChingon]

Well we got some pretty conclusive stuff from the USADA investigation. Obviously this is different, but one can always hope. Even if it doesn't reach any conclusions on doping-related matters, it could provide some good leads for future investigations (like the federal postal case). Who knows who they'll crack?

Only the weak and those who are switching sides are falling, the strong Omerta boys are still there and far from falling. USADA pinched a few weaklings and out of reach riders (no longer racing so no effect), Lance has taken a hit but not the big one we'd all like. Then, the investigation has only hit the initial surface, it goes deep and that incision has yet to hit pay dirt and I don't see it being able to hit the center due to people out of their reach. If Europe picks up the baton then maybe they can get somewhere, but will they bite the hand that feeds?

 

[Krebs cycle]

BP was introduced in 2008. Or are you trying to rewrite history?

Sorry 2008. 2010 was the year that they began sanctioning riders based on biopassport data. From memory Ashenden said the panel gave 5 positives to the UCI but then the UCI only acted on 2.

2 is better than none however and as I've stated before, the goal of anti-doping tests can only ever be to discourage doping by having the threat of catching the cheats, not to catch every single one of them which will never happen. Same logic applies to speed cameras, you won't catch everyone who speeds, but you discourage everyone from speeding all the time.

 

[Ferminal]

As stated, I feel as though we have touched on something we agree upon here though. I'm just as confused as you... if not more.... at the accusations that get thrown around in the clinic. Virtually every accusation around here simply looks at rider's GC record, which as you have stated can easily be fitted to some preconceived bias that they are doping. You have basically just used my own argument (that GC placing is not the best indicator of doping because you can fit whatever scenario you want to it) on myself. I accept that and this is why I prefer to look at general trends across a group in order to come to the conclusion that cycling has gradually become cleaner since 2010. The main reason I think Cadel is clean is because he is producing about the same w/kg now that he was when he was 22-23yrs old or thereabouts. He never magically improved this value and ended up winning the TdF by a solid margin as a result prior to 2010. He only won after a general trend occurred in which the average performance of the top 10-20 GC contenders or so became slower than it was only 3 or 4 yrs ago. What could possibly be the reason for that? Why are the best riders (not just one or two individuals but the entire top 10) going slower now than the top 10 from several years ago? Are the best riders o fhte last 2-3yrs just physiologically inferior? or maybe their doping programs are inferior? If the latter is the case then it is a step in the right direction because it allows the best of the best clean riders to actually compete and win. As of 2013 I believe that anyone who wins a GT could be clean.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

But I like to think (hope) that I apply my suspicions evenly across the field. I think there are very few cases where you can look at someone's career progression or lack of consistency and say it's a strong sign of doping. Plus you actually have to correlate that with a doping event which would say why they had a better/worse season. People have bad seasons for plenty of reasons and these need to be explained first (but can't if we just look at results and say that's that). Additionally if we apply the microscope looking for explanations to one rider, others deserve that same treatment even if our knowledge of their circumstances is not as strong.

Nor should we look at riders we think are clean and then use them as a benchmark for what others should achieve if they want to be credible. Unless they are at Moncoutie levels of verifiable cleanliness then I don't think it's reasonable to use them as a benchmark. Also, what is to say a sample of clean riders should perform alike? Will there not be psychological, physiological, circumstantial differences between them which might make one or the other more able to podium in consecutive GTs, or not have a bad one or two seasons across their career?

Most of my doping convictions on these types come from who they have performed against. It is very difficult for me to reach those same levels of conviction just by considering career progression against themselves, not relative to their rivals. There is not a case-study deep enough for anyone to be called a doper without considering who they were competing against.

Again, my point is not to change people's views, just to ensure that they are making their decision based on (what I believe to be) an accurate interpretation of results.

 

[blackcat]

Sorry 2008. 2010 was the year that they began sanctioning riders based on biopassport data. From memory Ashenden said the panel gave 5 positives to the UCI but then the UCI only acted on 2.

2 is better than none however and as I've stated before, the goal of anti-doping tests can only ever be to discourage doping by having the threat of catching the cheats, not to catch every single one of them which will never happen. Same logic applies to speed cameras, you won't catch everyone who speeds, but you discourage everyone from speeding all the time.

introduced in 2008.

and...

manipulated, in January 2008 by the alchemist hema boffins like ferrari.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Skoda has been more succesful in rallying than Ferrari has in F1, I think. I suspect that is what he's talking about.

Off topic I know but really? Skoda has won more in rally than Ferrari have in racing? F1 is just the tip of the iceberg for Ferrari, plenty of endurance/GT/Sportscar titles in there, like Le Mans, and older races like the Mille Milgia and its ilk