Nice interview from Matt Cooke, about racing clean vs Zabriskie, Levi, ...

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
sniper said:
btw, here's one of Papp's last posts on here:
that boldfaced bit is interesting. USADA again not looking good.
Then you are missing one of the finer points of the system. What happens if they opened sanctions (without a sports federation) on doctors with deep pockets? They might lose setting a terrible precedent.

USADA doesn't have the authority you think they do. To be fair to you, every IOC sport explains WADA/NADOs like they have much more authority than they actually do and that's no accident.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
Then you are missing one of the finer points of the system. What happens if they opened sanctions (without a sports federation) on doctors with deep pockets? They might lose setting a terrible precedent.

USADA doesn't have the authority you think they do. To be fair to you, every IOC sport explains WADA/NADOs like they have much more authority than they actually do and that's no accident.
thanks for expanding.
and you're right.
but didn't I read somewhere lately that Tygart is on some sort of 'religious quest' against doping in the US.
The statements from Papp, DeCanio, and now Cooke sketch a more modest picture.
 
Oct 22, 2009
48
0
0
we know they doped, but WHEN did they start

Nice interview.

I raced high level amateur (div 3 pro, which is like conti pro I guess) for a few years at the turn of the century. I stopped because I thought I did not have enough talent to make a living off the sport. After racing in europe, I definitely felt that there was a whole nother level of riding, and shortly after I stopped. I got way more out of the sport than I ever imagined, so in general I am not bitter.

The riders I looked up to racing in north america (saturn, navigators, Mercury, etc), I assumed to be clean because they were not that fast (compared to Europe), and it did not seem to make too much sense financially to dope. I still wonder if some of the known dopers actually doped while still a conti pro. Since most of my (higher level) racing was against these dom pros, I would like to know who doped while still a conti pro?

As an example Mike Barry beat me at a major race while racing for Saturn. I assumed that he was clean at the time. If I find out he was doping while at Saturn, AND that Navigators had a team wide doping program (we already know about O'Bee, and the effects of Russian training camp), I am owed a National champions jersey, and would have been cheated out of a World's spot. I would be ****ed if this was the case (like Frank Parisian), and I would be more vocal. Furthermore if all of Navigators was doped I am owed a few stages in 1.4 races internationally. However, I think it is more likely that they were clean at the time, and so I am less inclined to be vocal. Maybe I am naive, but I think it more likely that I am correct.

For me personally, I am not so much upset about the money (there is really very little to be made as a dom pro or as a journey man pro tour rider), it is about knowing for certain where I stand on a level playing field, and I knew I was cheated of that after my first race in Europe.

If someone knows FOR SURE with some first hand knowledge of who doped in NA in the early 2000 I would like to know. Not O'Bee et al. We know about them already. I am talking about the ones who have not been caught yet. PM me if you are not comfortable stating publicly.
 
sniper said:
thanks for expanding.
and you're right.
but didn't I read somewhere lately that Tygart is on some sort of 'religious quest' against doping in the US.
The statements from Papp, DeCanio, and now Cooke sketch a more modest picture.
nice try.
If someone tries to push a fake agenda by writing a few posts against someone this is what happens.

You honestly don't think Travis Tygart is a smarter professional than that? It is pure rubbish designed to smear him and his efforts and is being repeated by jilted Armstrong hangers-on.
 
momotaro said:
I assumed to be clean because they were not that fast (compared to Europe), and it did not seem to make too much sense financially to dope.
#1 By early 2000, EPO would be a relative bargain to buy. As a general rule, effective, "never tested positive" doping is not expensive.

#2 It makes perfect sense to dope when you are a continental "pro" earning a few thousand dollars annually racing.

#3 The guy who runs USA Cycling has no problem with dopers and doping. . USA Cycling will never support cleaning up results. You are probably owed a few things. You should be stomping mad about it. But, you will likely never get any satisfaction as the UCI is equally indifferent to protecting the integrity of the sport.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
#1 By early 2000, EPO would be a relative bargain to buy. As a general rule, effective, "never tested positive" doping is not expensive.

#2 It makes perfect sense to dope when you are a continental "pro" earning a few thousand dollars annually racing.

#3 The guy who runs USA Cycling has no problem with dopers and doping. . USA Cycling will never support cleaning up results. You are probably owed a few things. You should be stomping mad about it. But, you will likely never get any satisfaction as the UCI is equally indifferent to protecting the integrity of the sport.
I know a Cat 2 who was going to Mexico to buy it in the mid 90's...so I am guessing that the number of domestic pros around the turn of the millennium using EOP was not a small number.
 
Oct 22, 2009
48
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I know a Cat 2 who was going to Mexico to buy it in the mid 90's...so I am guessing that the number of domestic pros around the turn of the millennium using EOP was not a small number.
so sad.


When I said it did not make financial sense to dope as a conti pro, I meant more along the lines of the moral and health risk to use drugs was greater than the financial return as a conti pro. Maybe for protour money, but not conti pro. In retrospect, not being single minded about winning bike races is probably what stopped me for being a real pro (drugs or no drugs), lol.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
the financial return from doping as a pro conti is to get to pro tour then world tour......that saying plenty of guys dope and dont get higher than pro conti.
 
momotaro said:
As an example Mike Barry beat me at a major race while racing for Saturn. I assumed that he was clean at the time. If I find out he was doping while at Saturn, AND that Navigators had a team wide doping program (we already know about O'Bee, and the effects of Russian training camp), I am owed a National champions jersey, and would have been cheated out of a World's spot. I would be ****ed if this was the case (like Frank Parisian), and I would be more vocal. Furthermore if all of Navigators was doped I am owed a few stages in 1.4 races internationally. However, I think it is more likely that they were clean at the time, and so I am less inclined to be vocal. Maybe I am naive, but I think it more likely that I am correct.
If you were young, clean and finishing with these guys, you had the talent to go to Europe. But then you're up against even more dirty riders. FWIW, I always assumed Saturn/Navigators/Toyota were mostly dirty.

I think the frustration with guys like Matt is that he went pro at 25-26 years old. Too old to go to Europe, even if you've got the talent (and he probably did). So you spend race after race getting your head kicked in by Zajicek, O'neil, Baldwin etc etc, who are finishing a couple places ahead of you but getting paid double what you are.
 
momotaro said:
... I meant more along the lines of the moral and health risk to use drugs was greater than the financial return as a conti pro.
You'd think if they had half a brain this would be in there, but, it's not.

This always take me back to Fuentes' last trial where he roughly stated, "Cycling at an elite level is not healthy. I help the athletes be healthy." :rolleyes:

These lower-tier dopers are just helping themselves be healthy.
 
sniper said:
bit of a stretch, i agree. though he might have a point.
he seems to be suggesting USADA is corrupt for not investigating USAC/USOC inspite of Tygart having first hand knowledge of their corruption.
so basically all three are corrupt.
I heard that Tygart did some legal work in his early years for a law firm that supports Big Tobacco.

That same firm was used by USADA later to take Armstrong down. Bit of a concern involving big tobacco with Armstrong. Not sure that was appropriate. Appears a few power plays going on with Tygart and who he decides goes down and who stays up.

Armstrong had to go but I'm not 100% of Tygarts convictions.
 
thehog said:
I heard that Tygart did some legal work in his early years for a law firm that supports Big Tobacco.

That same firm was used by USADA later to take Armstrong down. Bit of a concern involving big tobacco with Armstrong. Not sure that was appropriate. Appears a few power plays going on with Tygart and who he decides goes down and who stays up.

Armstrong had to go but I'm not 100% of Tygarts convictions.
Stop stirring up trouble when there is none.If I remember Armstrong was linked to 'big Tobacco' when he was doing his campaigning/political shiit ..

if you use your logic than everyone is connected w something 'dark' via 2 degrees of separation.

gheezus
enough

or I'll report you
:rolleyes:
 
mewmewmew13 said:
Stop stirring up trouble when there is none.If I remember Armstrong was linked to 'big Tobacco' when he was doing his campaigning/political shiit ..

if you use your logic than everyone is connected w something 'dark' via 2 degrees of separation.

gheezus
enough

or I'll report you
:rolleyes:
That's what I meant. Armstrong was anti-tobacco. Pivotal behind Prop 29 in California.

Do you think USADA was lent on? Why would he use the same firm?

Armstrong was taken down because he was a dope head but rather worrying if the lenency on the other non "anti-tobacco" riders.
 
Archibald said:
am I missing something here?
He labels two organisations that allow PED use of athletes, then claims that a different organisation should be investigated for corruption...
pardon???
He doesn't quite understand the flow of authority. It's not all his fault as every sport sells WADA as having far more authority than they really do. Meanwhile, the sports federations are the ones with all the authority.

My understanding of current WADA regs is a NADO has no authority to sanction anyone at the federations.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
ahh, the IT guy tries to derail yet another thread by playing lawyer. Next he will be back to pretending he is a investment banker. Can't wait for the astronaut phase :rolleyes:
 
DirtyWorks said:
He doesn't quite understand the flow of authority. It's not all his fault as every sport sells WADA as having far more authority than they really do. Meanwhile, the sports federations are the ones with all the authority.

My understanding of current WADA regs is a NADO has no authority to sanction anyone at the federations.
just thought his corruption labels might have been appropriately applied first to USAC/USOC than to the folks who are trying to police them. It's not like it's been difficult over the past 2 decades to avoid testing positive, so it's not like USADA hasn't been trying.
Sure, that comes with the caveat as to 'how hard' that trying has been...
 
Archibald said:
just thought his corruption labels might have been appropriately applied first to USAC/USOC than to the folks who are trying to police them. It's not like it's been difficult over the past 2 decades to avoid testing positive, so it's not like USADA hasn't been trying.
Sure, that comes with the caveat as to 'how hard' that trying has been...
Yeah, USAC/USOC are definitely part of the problem and USADA cannot touch them.

The last brush-up with Armstrong attending the doper's Gran Fondo shows USADA has to be excessively polite when communicating publicly regarding the federations. They've got no authority.
 
thehog said:
That's what I meant. Armstrong was anti-tobacco. Pivotal behind Prop 29 in California.

Do you think USADA was lent on? Why would he use the same firm?

Armstrong was taken down because he was a dope head but rather worrying if the lenency on the other non "anti-tobacco" riders.
HUH?(scratches head)
 
Nov 12, 2014
2
0
0
보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스&#4

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅
보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅

보안철저배팅사이트──RTRT77쩜COM ── 배당좋은곳 테니스배팅
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS