Nibali still a clean champion?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

is Nibali cleans?

  • Not sure, need more evidence

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Picking of nits...............is your ..............forte.............
That's not nit picking
It's an important distinction.
Astana had contact with a banned person - that's the offence.
 
hrotha said:
Why the "still"? The Astana thing changes nothing in regards to any particular rider, and we've had more than enough evidence of Nibali's doping for years.

It's not even the first time the above happens to Astana.
I rarely follow doping cases so pardon my ignorance, but could you - or anyone else for that matter - show me some of this evidence against Nibali?
 
Hugo Koblet said:
I rarely follow doping cases so pardon my ignorance, but could you - or anyone else for that matter - show me some of this evidence against Nibali?
The only evidence specifically about Nibali that I am aware of is that Fanini has said that Nibali has trained with Ferrari (before the 2009 Tour de France).

Quickest source I could find was this:
The article, published in La Repubblica on Wednesday, featured quotes from Ivano Fanini, president of Continental squad Amore & Vita-McDonald. Fanini alleged that Pellizotti and Nibali had been training with Ferrari in Livigno before this year's Tour de France.

"There is evidence that Dr. Ferrari, in the weeks preceding the Tour de France, rode on a scooter between Livigno and Saint Morritz following a number of riders, including Nibali and Pellizotti, with a stopwatch in hand," said Fanini, according to La Repubblica.

...

The La Repubblica article also alleged that two riders had worked with Ferrari in Livigno in 2007. Fanini said that, at the time, he had advised Liquigas manager, Robert Amadio, who confirmed to him that Nibali and Pellizotti were in Livigno. However, he said Amadio denied that the riders were training with Ferrari.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Hugo Koblet said:
I rarely follow doping cases so pardon my ignorance, but could you - or anyone else for that matter - show me some of this evidence against Nibali?
You think Astana running a team wide program and Nibali is clean? Really?

The sport is long past the stage of looking for evidence of doping against a rider. It is looking for why a rider just might be clean. And you know what no one wins a 3 week stage race without PEDS.
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
TailWindHome said:
That's not nit picking
It's an important distinction.
Astana had contact with a banned person - that's the offence.
how about you start your own poll to see general opinion on what's worse, contact with a banned person, or hiring a person you should have known would be banned? Just add in a "they're both bad" option please.
 
Benotti69 said:
You think Astana running a team wide program and Nibali is clean? Really?

The sport is long past the stage of looking for evidence of doping against a rider. It is looking for why a rider just might be clean. And you know what no one wins a 3 week stage race without PEDS.
I never said anything about what I think. I was just getting interested in the case and wanted to read about evidence. Not what you think of a rider and the likelyhood of that rider being clean.
 
Roude Leiw said:
LOL, my thoughts exactly
Well, the way you edited my post in your quote, those aren't actually my thoughts.
Hugo Koblet said:
I rarely follow doping cases so pardon my ignorance, but could you - or anyone else for that matter - show me some of this evidence against Nibali?
He was allegedly seen training with Ferrari in 2009, a time when, according to Bertagnolli, basically all the top brass at Liquigas worked with him (Bertagnolli didn't actually name Nibali but in my opinion it's unlikely he didn't work with Ferrari, all things considered). Ferrari was then allegedly seen at an Astana training camp in 2013.

Then you have stuff that doesn't count for much as evidence but which, for me, helps paint a fuller picture, like his step forward in 2013 and 2014 (Tour only). I don't assume all the top guys dope, as I think that's a methodologically wrong approach (it would make us unable to realize if things actually changed, for example), but when someone with this kind of baggage starts doing what Nibali does, I'm practically certain they're doping.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
skippythepinhead said:
how about you start your own poll to see general opinion on what's worse, contact with a banned person, or hiring a person you should have known would be banned? Just add in a "they're both bad" option please.
General opinion on what's worse is irrelevant

Hiring someone who later gets banned isn't an offence.
Unless you're suggesting teams are sanctioned based on what they "should have known"
 
Netserk said:
The only evidence specifically about Nibali that I am aware of is that Fanini has said that Nibali has trained with Ferrari (before the 2009 Tour de France).

Quickest source I could find was this:
Italian newspaper La Repubblica printed an article in August 2009 with sport director Ivan Fanini, who said he had proof that Nibali trained with Ferrari. Nibali sued, the case was dropped in 2011, and Fanini paid a fine of around 4,000 euros.
Case closed. Apart from being surrounded by proven dopers and dodgy DSs and doctors throughout his career, being maybe the most consistent GT rider in the last 5 years, reaching stratospheric levels since with Astana (with a slight drop during Vuelta 2013) and winning Le Tour with power outputs similar to Froome 2013 while breathing through the nose there is absolutely nothing on him, not even a TUE.
 
TailWindHome said:
General opinion on what's worse is irrelevant

Hiring someone who later gets banned isn't an offence.
Unless you're suggesting teams are sanctioned based on what they "should have known"
Hiring a doping doctor (fact) is obviously worse than being rumoured that a banned doctor was at a training camp
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
TailWindHome said:
General opinion on what's worse is irrelevant

Hiring someone who later gets banned isn't an offence.
Unless you're suggesting teams are sanctioned based on what they "should have known"
If this was Sky instead of Astana
You would be as usual " as a BR forum sky fan boy who only have one agenda" be defending them to the highest mountain. My fave words " hypocritical ka ka "
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
ray j willings said:
If this was Sky instead of Astana
You would be as usual " as a BR forum sky fan boy who only have one agenda" be defending them to the highest mountain. My fave words " hypocritical ka ka "
What is it you find hypocritical about my position?
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
hrotha said:
I don't assume all the top guys dope, as I think that's a methodologically wrong approach (it would make us unable to realize if things actually changed, for example), but when someone with this kind of baggage starts doing what Nibali does, I'm practically certain they're doping.
It's not a methodologically wrong approach, it's the only rational position in light of all the information. I don't assume all the top guys dope either, as in, I am not 100% certain. That would be irrational. But I strongly suspect they all dope. To put some numbers to it, there is no top rider I consider more than 50% to be clean. Doping is the default at the top of (almost every) sport. This makes perfect sense if you think of the incentives these riders face, along with the low probability of getting caught.

It's also supported by interviews and accounts of former doping enablers like Angel Heredia or Victor Conte who confirm that yes, almost everyone dopes.
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
TailWindHome said:
General opinion on what's worse is irrelevant

Hiring someone who later gets banned isn't an offence.
Unless you're suggesting teams are sanctioned based on what they "should have known"
Agreed, why look at the team making the more effective hire.
 
TailWindHome said:
General opinion on what's worse is irrelevant

Hiring someone who later gets banned isn't an offence.
Unless you're suggesting teams are sanctioned based on what they "should have known"
This of course assumes the wildly unlikely assumption that they didn't know and/or want exactly what he was when they hired him. Your choice to believe it, but it's incredibly naive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS