Museeuw calls for doping confessions

[LauraLyn]

Thanks.

No, I wasn't going that deep.

But, as soon as they dope they have inescapably put their entire career up for re-assessment.

And, yes, a doped rider who wins knows nothing about what winning takes beyond the dope.

----

Ok, those are two, bold and pithy statements.

They are well considered, however, and I would be happy to elaborate further. . . . Dave.

I agree with your statements and also find them well considered.

I have two questions:
1. What are you more interested in: Catching the cheaters? or Cleaning up the Sport? I know they go hand-in-hand. But my question is what is your primary interest? Do you really care about the person Museeuw? Armstrong? If there is not a safe place for people to come out and talk, they will not. The omerta will stay in place. I don't think we need a character assassination for every person that is honest about a cheating past.

2. Does it mean that when a person speaks honestly about their mistakes, we have to doubt and doubt and doubt that person. I agree it is ok to doubt a person's motives at times, but you cannot do this all the time for everyone who has ever cheated or lied. You could hold a conversation that way?

Thanks.

 

[silverrocket]

Yeah its fake, I guess hes got another thing to fess up to now

But he would still only confess to being an old man trying to keep up with the young guys.

 

[D-Queued]

I agree with your statements and also find them well considered.

I have two questions:
1. What are you more interested in: Catching the cheaters? or Cleaning up the Sport? I know they go hand-in-hand. But my question is what is your primary interest? Do you really care about the person Museeuw? Armstrong? If there is not a safe place for people to come out and talk, they will not. The omerta will stay in place. I don't think we need a character assassination for every person that is honest about a cheating past.

2. Does it mean that when a person speaks honestly about their mistakes, we have to doubt and doubt and doubt that person. I agree it is ok to doubt a person's motives at times, but you cannot do this all the time for everyone who has ever cheated or lied. You could hold a conversation that way?

Thanks.

Oh boy. Your questions are more well considered than my responses.

1. Can we split this?

Personally, I care more about cleaning up the sport that I love.

Wrt certain individuals, though, there are actions that are truly repulsive. I don't like the situation in North Korea, and I don't like the situation in Syria. But, they are far away and a direct personal link is hard to establish. Lance is very close, and a personal link is often hard to ignore.

Museeuw was highly decorated in prestigious events, but didn't appear to pursue fundamental manipulation to control the destiny of the sport. When Lance was a donkey, he could barely finish a mountain stage ahead of Museeuw. Thus, in the case of Johan, he is merely a measuring stick for Lance's deception and thus not as offensive.

I am very glad to see JM come forward. This is very hard to do, especially when you know family and friends will read this and when you know that you will be pilloried and second-guessed. Even harder when, if you care about the sport, you are worried about damaging it.

I hope that this is a start for JM, and that he will be encouraged to say more and will work to help others come clean.

2. I have gone from a fierce critic to at least a modest supporter of Landis. I will even contribute to a fund that will help pay back the FFF, as much as I loathe the deception that created it.

The world loves a redemption story.

If Lance has any brains, he will figure this out soon before he so damages himself that he removes the only positive path left for him.

Dave.

 

[LauraLyn]

Dave: It is rare in life that the responses to questions are better than the questions. You have kept this rarity alive. I cannot add to it, only agree.

One famous American philosopher said you could not hold a conversation without being generous. He was referring specifically to semantics. I think it needs to go beyond semantics.

But you are right. We need to be correct as well. It appears very Dao to me.

 

[131313]

If there is not a safe place for people to come out and talk, they will not. The omerta will stay in place. I don't think we need a character assassination for every person that is honest about a cheating past.

Well, with respect to JM I have yet to see him really be honest about his cheating past, and he certainly hasn't accepted the reality of it. He still thinks he would have been the best, and that the playing field was level, and that "everybody did it". Of course, that's if the translations are correct, and that's always an issue. If he's willing actually talk about his past, honestly, that's one thing. So far all he's given are lame excuses and rationalizations regarding his own behavior. When he's willing to acknowledge the guys whose careers he's stolen, I'll be more receptive.

I certainly give him more credit than Merckx, a guy who sent his own son to be doped up by Ferrari, and is defending LA to this day,but that's not saying much. I do think that his plea for honesty is a good thing; but he needs to start with himself.

 

[Boeing]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/museeuw-calls-for-doping-confessions-from-past-riders

Thank you Johan.

The ball keeps on rolling. Some good days.

Maybe he should suggest Amnesty for those who do

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

LauraLyn:

Not too convinced by the rationalization of the word "Witch hunt" you give. It's hugely connoted in a pejorative way (and obviously, reminiscent of the PR defense of Armstrong), and I'm pretty sure there's not much cultural difference in the expression in Dutch, English or French ("Chasse aux sorcières"). In the whole context of the declarations, it only reinforces the general apologetic tone.

Well, with respect to JM I have yet to see him really be honest about his cheating past, and he certainly hasn't accepted the reality of it. He still thinks he would have been the best, and that the playing field was level, and that "everybody did it". Of course, that's if the translations are correct, and that's always an issue. If he's willing actually talk about his past, honestly, that's one thing. So far all he's given are lame excuses and rationalizations regarding his own behavior. When he's willing to acknowledge the guys whose careers he's stolen, I'll be more receptive.

I haven't found the mentions -in my rudimental effort to translate it- about him being the best doping or not, either in the Gazet van Antwerpen or Het van Limburge online versions (the article is the same, word for word, in both), hence my question about the fact that it would be the digest version of a longer interview printed in the actual papers.

The online version does end on a phrase that I believe -please someone correct me if needed- means that Museeuw doesn't believe that palmares and records should be modified, which pretty much imply that, indeed, he doesn't think he should be stripped of his wins.

Sure it's nice that Museeuw pretty much confess of having doped, but his statements are too vague to be of much weight.

"Everyone" doped? We did figure that much by ourselves long ago...
Museeuw is telling others to come clean? Guess I can't fault him for that, but that's what they have been told for more than a decade now.

Cycling have had generous time to fix the problem by itself and have not.
Museeuw, if he's not just playing the PR game, should go to the relevant authorities and help the ongoing investigations to identify and ultimately sanction doping rings.

If we are waiting for omerta to die of natural causes, we may very well have the same discussions in 2022.

 

["Jeff"]

I gotta give some credit to Johan Museeuw now. He actually admits he didnt only dope later in his career like most knew already.

I do not agree with the fact that if everybody would have been clean (a pipe dream) that all the results would have been the same.

 

["Jeff"]

Hmm, what's going on with his hair? Plugs?

Correct, it has been known that Museeuw has a hairpiece.

He's bald.

 

[fatandfast]

Correct, it has been known that Museeuw has a hairpiece.

He's bald.

Even with a bad rug or a head planted with misplaced hair stalks Museeuw is a hard man. Lance's nail me to the cross will bring out more and more of this as past greats see some strange level of punishment for standard practices. As this is discussed over and over and over the real questions are never answered. If the head is rotten why punish only the body?
Now it turns out that one on the directors of one the sports biggest teams allowed riders to race and continue to represent the brand even after a confession of doping. If we can trust the leaders of the sport, why put all the blame on the hired help.
jM said he used years ago, that is enough,details are not important a decade after he was done racing. Vaughters should accept a punishment at least twice a great as any rider.

 

["Jeff"]

@fatandfast, perhaps I misunderstand you but I'm not making fun of his baldness. I just confirm.

While we are it, some inside information. If anyone is still interested, both Gert-Jan Theunisse and Thierry Claveyrolat had hairpieces as well.

 

[LauraLyn]

Well, with respect to JM I have yet to see him really be honest about his cheating past, and he certainly hasn't accepted the reality of it. He still thinks he would have been the best, and that the playing field was level, and that "everybody did it". Of course, that's if the translations are correct, and that's always an issue. If he's willing actually talk about his past, honestly, that's one thing. So far all he's given are lame excuses and rationalizations regarding his own behavior. When he's willing to acknowledge the guys whose careers he's stolen, I'll be more receptive.

I certainly give him more credit than Merckx, a guy who sent his own son to be doped up by Ferrari, and is defending LA to this day,but that's not saying much. I do think that his plea for honesty is a good thing; but he needs to start with himself.

Yesterday I pointed out in this thread that the translation is wrong: "nearly [nagenoeg] everyone did it." [It is even clear in the headline of the article in the GVA and De Standaard. So much of the rebuttal here against "everyone did it" misses the point.

Agree 100% on Merckx. Don't forget who Axel works for today. I think this whole affair is really becoming very damaging to Merckx.

I can agree that Museeuw should go much further, and certainly I agree with starting with yourself. I think this is one of the things that Tyler Hamilton does so well.

Still its not about catching every bad guy or solving every crime. That never happens in real life. It's about making a change to cycling.

LauraLyn:

Not too convinced by the rationalization of the word "Witch hunt" you give. It's hugely connoted in a pejorative way (and obviously, reminiscent of the PR defense of Armstrong), and I'm pretty sure there's not much cultural difference in the expression in Dutch, English or French ("Chasse aux sorcières"). In the whole context of the declarations, it only reinforces the general apologetic tone.

I haven't found the mentions -in my rudimental effort to translate it- about him being the best doping or not, either in the Gazet van Antwerpen or Het van Limburge online versions (the article is the same, word for word, in both), hence my question about the fact that it would be the digest version of a longer interview printed in the actual papers.

The online version does end on a phrase that I believe -please someone correct me if needed- means that Museeuw doesn't believe that palmares and records should be modified, which pretty much imply that, indeed, he doesn't think he should be stripped of his wins.

Sure it's nice that Museeuw pretty much confess of having doped, but his statements are too vague to be of much weight. . . .

If we are waiting for the omerta to die of natural causes, we may very well have the same discussions in 2022.

I agree "witch hunt" is strongly "pejorative" and it is a bad choice of the writer/editor. But I wasn't trying to rationalize it, though I agree it may appear that way. In fact, the GVA is the only paper I could find (I'm not saying there aren't others) using the word - but it is also the source. So it is a bit strange. I wanted to point out (1) that Museeuw himself had not used the term (others attributed it to him and that was incorrect and it was my major point), and (2) that that was how I was reading the article, that the author was being lazy - but ok, my Flemish ain't nothin' to write home about. Thanks for insisting on the correct connotations.

Yes, he does state that he doesn't believe we should go back and try to sort out the palmares. He believes it was a level playing field and the best riders won. He thinks we should focus on the future. (See the discussion on this that Larry raised a few posts above.)

What would kill the omerta?

 

[Echoes]

Giving Museeuw more credit than Merckx E. is retardism at its finest.

Merckx never transfused blood (rumour has it he refused it) and obviously never used Aranesp. He did not send his son to Ferrari because at that time, his son was old enough to see Ferrari on his own.

Museeuw is a joke. He does not appear on the palmares on any race, like every blood or hormone doper. Van Hooydonck should've built the greatest classic palmares of the 90's. Not him.

In history's dungeon, the guy who thought he was the Lion of Flanders (that will always be Cyriel Van Houwaert, of course).



Oh and the hell with all those references to USADA, Pharmstrong or whatever. Can't you see it's off topic. How much sh*t do you have in your eyes for that. 20 threads about Pharmstrong on Page 1 of this section is not enough for you?

Why can't you say that Pharmstrong is your idol? Why can't you say that no chicks on this planet is worth Pharmstrong's a*s ???

 

[D-Queued]

Hi Echoes,

Who are you directing this at?

Other than taking you up on your request, and stating 'Pharmstrong is my idol', I don't know what to make of this.

Of course, it is far easier to state Pharmstrong is my idol, as opposed to any similar statement about Lance the liar.

I love Eddy, have signatures, photos and bikes. However, someone introduced his son to Ferrari whether he was old enough to see him or not. That someone could easily have been Eddy.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Giving Museeuw more credit than Merckx E. is retardism at its finest.

Merckx never transfused blood (rumour has it he refused it) and obviously never used Aranesp. He did not send his son to Ferrari because at that time, his son was old enough to see Ferrari on his own.

Museeuw is a joke. He does not appear on the palmares on any race, like every blood or hormone doper. Van Hooydonck should've built the greatest classic palmares of the 90's. Not him.

In history's dungeon, the guy who thought he was the Lion of Flanders (that will always be Cyriel Van Houwaert, of course).


Oh and the hell with all those references to USADA, Pharmstrong or whatever. Can't you see it's off topic. How much sh*t do you have in your eyes for that. 20 threads about Pharmstrong on Page 1 of this section is not enough for you?

Why can't you say that Pharmstrong is your idol? Why can't you say that no chicks on this planet is worth Pharmstrong's a*s ???

Ferarri refused to take on Armstrong till Merckx E insisted.

Merckx is not much to be celebrated for anymore. His defence of the omerta and Armstrong tarnish his legacy for me.

 

[LauraLyn]

Ferarri refused to take on Armstrong till Merckx E insisted.

Merckx is not much to be celebrated for anymore. His defence of the omerta and Armstrong tarnish his legacy for me.

Agree. Eddy is a huge disappointment for me. It is not the first time I would have wished for more from Eddy with respect to doping, but this time it is too much (or just far too little).

I don't see him making it good now. Not, not for me.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Ferarri refused to take on Armstrong till Merckx E insisted.


You certain of this??

 

[Benotti69]

Ferarri refused to take on Armstrong till Merckx E insisted.

You certain of this??

Here.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1020750

Their (Armstrong+Ferarri) relationship began as long ago as 1995, when Eddy Merckx had called Ferrari, asking him to take on a new client, a young American who'd won a Tour stage as well as the San Sebastian Classic that year. Ferrari wasn't interested, he says, but Merckx persisted, and in November of 1995 Lance Armstrong came to Ferrara for the Test

 

[LauraLyn]

Ferarri refused to take on Armstrong till Merckx E insisted.


You certain of this??

The source of the source (not all news services provide their sources): L. A. Confidentiel: Les secrets de Lance Armstrong (2004), by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester. [The book never made it into English because David Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times and Lance sued The Sunday Times.

See Daniel Coyle, Lance Armstrong's War: One Man's Battle Against Fate, Fame, Love, Death, Scandal, and a Few Other Rivals on the Road to the Tour de France (2005):

In the fall of 1995, Ferrari got a call from none other than Eddy
Merckx asking if he might consider taking on a friend of his, a
twenty-four-year-old American named Lance Armstrong. Ferrari
knew of Armstrong—who didn’t? Armstrong had won the world
championship at the unusually tender age of twenty-two; he’d been
the youngest-ever winner of a Tour de France stage; he also had the
reputation of being difficult. But Ferrari had a full slate of clients,
he was not looking for more. Mostly out of politeness, Ferrari had
Armstrong come to his home in Ferrara for some testing.

“I did not want to take him,” Ferrari said. “Then we did a test
and I saw his numbers. Very quickly I changed my mind.”
To imagine Ferrari testing Armstrong for the first time is like
imagining what it’s like for an orchid collector to lay his eyes on an
elusive specimen after years of searching. In walked this big, confi-
dent kid. (“Very big,” Ferrari remembers. “Very, very big.”) His rest-
ing pulse was around thirty. He could generate over five hundred
watts for long periods and produced very little lactic acid. His
hematocrit level—his percentage of oxygen-carrying red blood
cells—was in the range of 47 percent (low- to mid-forties being nor-
mal for most people; 50 percent having been established by the UCI
as the legal limit). His leg muscles had an unusually high percent-
age of efficient, slow-twitch fibers.

“Champions, they are naturally selected,” Ferrari said. “They
begin at their own level, and Lance was at that level, for sure.”

 

[Echoes]

Hi Echoes,

Who are you directing this at?

Other than taking you up on your request, and stating 'Pharmstrong is my idol', I don't know what to make of this.

Of course, it is far easier to state Pharmstrong is my idol, as opposed to any similar statement about Lance the liar.

Dave.

Hi,

My post was not directed at anyone in particular.

I find it amazing - to say the least - to see so many threads on Pharmstrong on this section, as if there were no other dopers in our sport.

Pharmstrong tested positive 6 times, 7 years ago. So I guess there's no need to find new evidence against him. Why finding new evidence when we already have some undisputable ones??? Why starting 20,000,000,000 threads about him, including stickies, while the truth has been unveiled 7 years ago? There's absolutely no point ! Rebellin tested positive in 2008. Who cares about finding new evidence against him? Nobody ! We've all turned that page and he's forgotten.

But while we're making a lot of effort to find new evidence against Pharmstrong - as if they were needed - many true dopers are still active today and taking victories away from clean riders and nobody seem to care.

More particularly on the classics. I've already point out the lack of effort by authorities to catch classic riders.

Nobody seems to care ! Nobody cares about the classic and certainly not Anglos. It's all about Pharmstrong. Can't you see that you are just consolidating his fame by constantly talking about him.

Museeuw was a youth idol when Van Hooydonck's performances went down and I was 20 when the Landuyt/Versele affair broke out. I had a hard time accepting the facts and I think I accept them now. Museeuw no longer represents anything for me. And then I was "moved" when I realized that my former 'idol' (Van Hooydonck) was probably clean and screwed over by all those EPO dopers from the 90's.

This has been a tragedy for me. But who cares, really?

 

[erader]

Well, he could begin with his own story.

let it begin with you, you lying, cheating sumbatch !

 

[erader]

I find it amazing - to say the least - to see so many threads on Pharmstrong on this section, as if there were no other dopers in our sport.

armstrong had the UCI paid off. armstrong had the audacity to come out of retirement under the guise of "hope rides again" and cheat again.

 

[D-Queued]

Hi,

My post was not directed at anyone in particular.

I find it amazing - to say the least - to see so many threads on Pharmstrong on this section, as if there were no other dopers in our sport.

Pharmstrong tested positive 6 times, 7 years ago. So I guess there's no need to find new evidence against him. ...

You find it amazing. I find it very confusing.

Somehow we likely have an overlap of agreement.

Now, if we could only have convinced the UCI that the guy was a cheat back in 1999, when they covered up his cortisone, we wouldn't have to waste so much time on this case now.

It is even possible that we wouldn't need to discuss doping.

However, as the Lance case underscores how complicit and corrupt the entire sport is, well we may have to put up with a bit more of this.

Cycling never got cleaned up after PDM, Geweiss, Festina, or OP.

Will Lance's case really change things?

Fortunately, we are assured, the dirty era is behind us now.

If everyone could just agree that Lance was the dirtiest, could we just move on?

Dave.

 

[86TDFWinner]

For sure, by implication. But still nothing that points the finger at him directly.

As I've asked a gazillion times here and elsewhere: Please post ANY CREDIBLE source(former teammate/rider/captain/etc) that has actually SEEN Lemond dope, or any investigations into if he doped, someone with FACTUAL, UNSUBSTANTIATED PROOF? Not innuendo, not BS, not "my brothers friends sisters dogs step uncle in law, second cousin twice removed, goldfish saw Him..blah blah blah", ACTUAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE saying he did.


No one can, why? THERE ISN'T ANY. It would've come out by now.


Please(for the last time) STOP SAYING HE DID IF YOU CANNOT POST CREDIBLE/FACTUAL PROOF THAT HE DID. Otherwise, whoever continues saying it, makes themselves look foolish.

This isn't directed @ you, just to EVERYONE in general. It gets tiring hearing about something no one upto this point has been able to prove, or post proof of. The guy raced clean, get over yourselves, until someone posts CREDIBLE PROOF saying otherwise? I will continue to believe he raced clean. He's been retired for 18 yrs, it would've come out by now. Wonderboy & his band of merry imbeciles tried(unsuccessfully I might add) to "dig up" dirt on him & whether he doped("I can get 10 people to say you doped Greg"), and whatever became of that? NOTHING!!!!

 

[Echoes]

When riders are dirty, who cares who's dirtier or the dirtiest. They are dirty, period.


Whether you be Museeuw, Ballan, Ullrich, Rebellin, Pantani, Chiappucci, Berzin, Vandenbroucke, Bortolami, Contador, Bartoli, Vinokourov, Armstrong or Mickaël Larpe.


All dirty (with EPO, blood dope or hormone-based dope) and there's evidence for it. All in the same bag and thrown into the garbage truck.

They are all equal in this. They've committed the essential crime that contains all the others in itself (to paraphrase Orwell).

I'd say that when this is accepted, we can move on.