Motor doping thread

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

Gosh I hate Gaimon. First Mancebo, now this, yet still buddies with Tommy D. Ugh..

Also this:
https://twitter.com/philgaimon/status/924360334583803904

And his response to this reply asking about Tommy D is very telling:
https://twitter.com/JesperCarstens/status/924368145896394753

That last one is pure comedy gold. Why don't the UCI just hire Gaimon to sort out the cheaters from the clean ones? Apparently the man can do it all just by observation.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

Gosh I hate Gaimon. First Mancebo, now this, yet still buddies with Tommy D. Ugh..

Also this:
https://twitter.com/philgaimon/status/924360334583803904

And his response to this reply asking about Tommy D is very telling:
https://twitter.com/JesperCarstens/status/924368145896394753

That last one is pure comedy gold. Why don't the UCI just hire Gaimon to sort out the cheaters from the clean ones? Apparently the man can do it all just by observation.

Well, it's not that hard to do it by observation.
Gaimon's problem is selective blindness.
Cancellara, 100% certain a motor. Hesjedal, come on just journalists looking for sensation, nothing to see there.

 

[hrotha]

He's a nobody, he's jealous of riders who did make it, he's bitter, he wants to sell his book...
I mean, at least come up with original stuff, folks.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

That last one is pure comedy gold. Why don't the UCI just hire Gaimon to sort out the cheaters from the clean ones? Apparently the man can do it all just by observation.

As can more than a few posting on this very forum. All they need to know is there's been a crash and they can diagnose Tramadol use. All they need to see is a wheel spinning to be sure it's a motor. All they need is to see someone riding uphill fast to decide it was EPO. Let's not knock the powers of observation...

 

[jmdirt]

The UCI is investigating because PG wrote it in his book? That strategy should save the UCI a lot of money, they don't have to do any leg work on their own, just wait for someone to write about it. They could get years worth of info here on the forum!

 

[Craigee]

Re: Re:

That last one is pure comedy gold. Why don't the UCI just hire Gaimon to sort out the cheaters from the clean ones? Apparently the man can do it all just by observation.

As can more than a few posting on this very forum. All they need to know is there's been a crash and they can diagnose Tramadol use. All they need to see is a wheel spinning to be sure it's a motor. All they need is to see someone riding uphill fast to decide it was EPO. Let's not knock the powers of observation...

No different from posters trying to talk others into believing there has never ever been motor doping in the pro peloton. And as for diagnosing tramadol use, it has come out in investigations and witnesses from BC and Sky that they offered tramadol freely even if one has no head ache or sore knee. They clearly think it's performance enhancing to want their riders to take it for reasons other than that for which it is produced and intended for and that is pain. Common sense brother common sense. You keep preaching but I doubt you've converted anyone here.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

Gosh I hate Gaimon. First Mancebo, now this, yet still buddies with Tommy D. Ugh..

Also this:
https://twitter.com/philgaimon/status/924360334583803904

And his response to this reply asking about Tommy D is very telling:
https://twitter.com/JesperCarstens/status/924368145896394753

That last one is pure comedy gold. Why don't the UCI just hire Gaimon to sort out the cheaters from the clean ones? Apparently the man can do it all just by observation.

Well, it's not that hard to do it by observation.
Gaimon's problem is selective blindness.
Cancellara, 100% certain a motor. Hesjedal, come on just journalists looking for sensation, nothing to see there.

That depends on what is being observed. It is in fact very hard to tell just by observation in its raw form. With raw observation it's difficult to tell if the observed pattern is caused by a motor or if it is caused by something else, since there's a big distance from what you are observing to what you want to measure (i.e. motor or not) . Now, if any of you, or Gaimon for that matter, had a thermal x-ray built into your eyes so you could identify motors inside the riders' bikes, observation would be a lot more profitable. Alternatively, if you could make calculations based on the images showing that what is going on has to be caused by a motor, it would also serve as better evidence.

I agree that selective blindness is another problem, and especially when paired with observation on data (data which in this case happen to be very difficult to draw conclusions from).

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The UCI is investigating because PG wrote it in his book? That strategy should save the UCI a lot of money, they don't have to do any leg work on their own, just wait for someone to write about it. They could get years worth of info here on the forum!

Verbruggen, McQuaid, even Cookson, they liked to pretend books didn't exist...crazy as this is, it counts as progress, of a sort.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

No different from posters trying to talk others into believing there has never ever been motor doping in the pro peloton.

Typical Clinic BS. If you don't believe everyone is doing it all the time then you're clearly a denier who believes it never ever ever happened at all.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

No different from posters trying to talk others into believing there has never ever been motor doping in the pro peloton.

Typical Clinic BS. If you don't believe everyone is doing it all the time then you're clearly a denier who believes it never ever ever happened at all.

Craigee is not the clinic so leave out the "typical clinic BS' comment and personal attack.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

The UCI is investigating because PG wrote it in his book? That strategy should save the UCI a lot of money, they don't have to do any leg work on their own, just wait for someone to write about it. They could get years worth of info here on the forum!

Verbruggen, McQuaid, even Cookson, they liked to pretend books didn't exist...crazy as this is, it counts as progress, of a sort.

Even Cookson? :surprised: Cookie was the worst of them all :lol:

 

[pastronef]

was wondering if Gaimon wrote about Froome-motor-suspicion instead of Cancellara-motor-suspicion the kudos would be huge compared to the "just wants to sell the book" comments he's getting now.

 

[thehog]

was wondering if Gaimon wrote about Froome-motor-suspicion instead of Cancellara-motor-suspicion the kudos would be huge compared to the "just wants to sell the book" comments he's getting now.

It’s a bit of both. He wants to sell a book and came out with one of the most obvious and most talked about use of motors. It was a no brainier as is protected by libel via a large ocean between Europe and the US.

 

[fmk_RoI]

was wondering if Gaimon wrote about Froome-motor-suspicion instead of Cancellara-motor-suspicion the kudos would be huge compared to the "just wants to sell the book" comments he's getting now.

Bear in mind that Tyler Hamilton got away with repeating peloton scuttlebutt in his book.

 

[70kmph]

As long as Authors leave out the important facts from books its fine to earn royalties from Mein Climb, Its not About the Bike, Positively False...

 

[thehog]

Péraud has a impressive resume. Will certainly do a better job than Cookson’s cronies.

The UCI announced on Friday that Jean-Christophe Péraud will take up the position. The 40 year old holds a University Technological Diploma in chemical engineering, Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in process engineering, and a Diploma in energy and environmental engineering obtained at the National Institute of Applied Sciences (Institut National des Sciences Appliquées – INSA) in Lyon, France.

He was a successful mountain bike athlete from 1998 to 2009, then rode as a professional road rider from 2010 to 2016. He won the Critérium International in 2014 and 2015, and was second overall in the 2014 Tour de France.

 

[wansteadimp]

Péraud has a impressive resume. Will certainly do a better job than Cookson’s cronies.

The UCI announced on Friday that Jean-Christophe Péraud will take up the position. The 40 year old holds a University Technological Diploma in chemical engineering, Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in process engineering, and a Diploma in energy and environmental engineering obtained at the National Institute of Applied Sciences (Institut National des Sciences Appliquées – INSA) in Lyon, France.

He was a successful mountain bike athlete from 1998 to 2009, then rode as a professional road rider from 2010 to 2016. He won the Critérium International in 2014 and 2015, and was second overall in the 2014 Tour de France.

Yep, 2nd in the TdF as a 36/37 year old, are we to believe he is poacher turned game keeper or do we believe you can podium in a grand tour clean now?

I certainly wouldn't be trusting an ex-member of the peloton to clean up cycling!

 

[deviant]

Excellent post, ex peleton and GT podium in late 30s is helping clean up the sport!?...sure...nothing changes.

...may as well put Armstrong in charge.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Gaimon's problem is selective blindness.

It's not just selective blindness but selective targeting. Targeting Paco trying to make a living beating part-timers and Continental Pros who never competed outside North America in obscure .2 races ten years after his doping indiscretions is just picking on an easy target, and as I said at the time, if you wanted to say "doping doesn't pay" and argue against it, Paco Mancebo still trying to make a living into his 40s in such a way is a far better argument than a lot of the people who sat out two years then returned to making a living at the top. And a LOT better than some of the people Phil associates with, who took a short ban through the offseason several years after their indiscretion, and returned to earning World Tour level pro salaries early the following year, because it was a long time ago and they showed remorse. I'm sure that after a decade of being persona non grata at any race above the .1 level and bouncing around races like the Tour de Guadeloupe and Tour de l'Egypte riding for teams like Heraklion Kastro-Murcía, CompetitiveCyclist.com and Hangar 15 Bicycles, Paco has just as much regret as Vaughters' ex-USPS committee and a damn sight more than the likes of David Millar. He hasn't been banned, but he's suffered a lot more for his sins than most who have.

Contador is also an easy target to Gaimon's target audience because he was successfully painted in large sections of the American press as a villain in 2009, and while Armstrong's subsequent downfall may override that part, by that time Alberto had got himself suspended for doping in his own right. Blaming Alberto for Manuel freaking Sola Arjona testing positive is a huge leap in logic too. Manuel Sola is a 25-year-old who rode a year with Keith Mobel-Partizan in 2014 but didn't get renewed and returned to the amateur ranks. He was passed up by Burgos-BH after riding with them as a stagiare in 2016, and at 25 this year was probably his last chance at being given an opportunity to turn pro; he tested positive back at the Vuelta a Navarra, before Caja Rural took him on, and a long time before Contador's final Vuelta was turned into a lap of honour as everybody paid tribute to his headlong charge in search of one last victory. Sola was doping (or was doping to the extent of being caught, at least) because he was in last chance saloon with regards to his career. Not because of Alberto Contador. Unless Sola said "I doped because I wanted to get a stagiare contract so I could ride some pre-Vuelta warmup races with my hero, Alberto Contador" or similar, then I don't see how Gaimon's logical leap fits.

I mean, it isn't Kittel attacking Sayar in terms of soft targets, and we ought to be grateful that there are some riders who are sticking their heads above the parapet, but he has also been silent or avoided issuing an opinion on some more contentious cases, and his response to the question pertaining to the difference between Contador and Danielson is patronizing and reeks of the David Walsh "I know better than you" complex. If he draws a line between the two characters then that's fine. We all have certain tolerance limits, and given he knows the two of them better than I can ever hope to, then maybe he has his reasons. And I'm sure that the way the question was posed was more than a bit loaded and confrontational. But if there is a specific reason that Gaimon can differentiate the two as dopers, wouldn't it be nice to understand why he draws that distinction, rather than just be smacked down for your ignorance? Even if it's just "I elaborate on the distinction/my opinions on TD and AC in my book, afraid it's too complex for 140 characters" it's a lot more helpful than a curt response which carries the implication "you know less than me. I know better". It's a bit like when Vaughters took the Clinic to task for questioning Dr Íñigo San Millán, because he knew things about the man that we did not. Hrotha pointed out to him at the time, by all means tell us we're wrong and why, but don't criticise us as being ignorant for not knowing the facts, when those facts have been withheld from us.

That's of course assuming that Gaimon has clear and understandable reasons for drawing a distinction between Contador and Danielson. It may not be the case, but in that case an admission that maintaining an anti-doping outlook while also being loyal to personal friends can cause cognitive dissonance would go a long way to gaining Phil a lot more leeway from fans, who may not have personal friends in the péloton but who also wrestle with the cognitive dissonance that comes from a combination of wanting to see a fair and exciting fight but also supporting characters and riders that they know doped or are doping. I'm sure being an anti-doping rider trying to make it in a péloton that still harbours many ex-dopers creates plenty of uncertainty too; the need to not rock the boat too much in order that you don't get hounded out, and also holding conversation with people day in day out that you develop personal bonds and relationships with, yet you may not know that they are guilty of the same thing you rail against. How different would that be from any office worker holding casual conversation with a colleague who is quietly embezzling funds on the side? It's not the fact that Gaimon is fighting these battles, nor the fact that he has friends who were dopers, but the fact that Gaimon is selective about the battles he fights that is part of the reason he generates these abrasive discussions. I'm sure Phil has his reasons for having picked out Paco Mancebo, Alberto Contador and Manuel Sola for criticism, but I don't know what those reasons are. Maybe in his book he elaborates, maybe he doesn't. If he does, he ought to point that out, because it may be a factor for some potential readers as to whether they want to read the book, rather than smack down any discourse because some people noted that, without that elaboration, he looks like a hypocrite. At the same time though, fans can't expect Phil to come frothing at the mouth with rabid fury every time a rider at any level tests positive, or now that he is out of the pro péloton throw his own personal relationships from that period of his life in a dustbin and set that dustbin on fire, just in the interest of balance. That's not a realistic thing to ask of him either.

 

[mojomonkey]

I took Gaimon's tweet as not saying that Contador was directly responsible for Manuel Sola doping, but that praising dopers, or pretty much lionizing them as Contador was in the Vuelta, is a sign that people aren't really all that concerned with doping. Big stars dope and still get money, success, and glowing press.

As for the Danielson relationship and tweet - he does say in that back and forth that it is covered in some podcast. I don't even follow it closely but remember it coming up here and there before. A quick search of their two last names turns sources up, like this article: https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/interview-why-phil-gaimon-believes-danielson-wasnt-doping/ and he mentions Mancebo and Danielson here in 2014: http://nyvelocity.com/articles/interviews/phil-gaimon-interview/

I remember hearing him talking about it other places too, at least the video of his attempt at Tommy's Mt Lemmon KOM. He is probably tired of talking about it, and was also trying to make a joke.

 

[Blanco]

So Cancellara demands end to sales of Gaimon's book and also a public appology. I'm not a fan of Cancellara, but somebody needs to shut up this clown!

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

So Cancellara demands end to sales of Gaimon's book and also a public appology. I'm not a fan of Cancellara, but somebody needs to shut up this clown!

What if he’s right?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So Cancellara demands end to sales of Gaimon's book and also a public appology. I'm not a fan of Cancellara, but somebody needs to shut up this clown!

What if he’s right?

The ultimate defense against defamation is the truth. I seriously doubt Cancellera is going to come to the US and raise a suit. Gaimon is a total tool but he picked his target well.

 

[Robert5091]

“all PR is good PR" ?

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

So Cancellara demands end to sales of Gaimon's book and also a public appology. I'm not a fan of Cancellara, but somebody needs to shut up this clown!

What if he’s right?

A trial would be a great spectacle! Go Spartacus!