Nicole Cooke attacks drug cheats in the womens peloton

[Mellow Velo]

Google is your friend.

http://gototennis.com/2010/09/25/rafael-nadal-knee-update-his-doctors-spin-on-prp-therapy/

Since this is totally off- topic here i apologize to the mods, should be in the tennis thread.

I wouldn't worry, as it's a very informative piece and mentions cycling.
Thanks for that!

So, Nadal's problem is at least from 2009, or earlier in origin.
Possibly even 2005.

This PRP treatment is legal, but has a shady reputation, but only because of it being related to the removal and replacement of blood: i.e. blood doping?

Plus forget Fuentes and now google this Mikel Sánchez fellow for any misdeeds....


..........right, for anyone interested, here we go.
Let judgement commence.
Pioneering treatment:
http://www.zimbio.com/David+Howman/articles/HZQgCgD8vyD/Rafa+s+doctor+Dr+Mikel+Sanchez

WADA green light:
http://bti-biotechnologyinstitute.com/corporate/latest-news/news/world-anti-doping-agency/

 

[coinneach]

see post in Tennis thread about this treatment and similar hocus pocus

 

[dottigirl]

More:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/wales/21085639

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...sh-olympic-champion-nicole-cooke-8456879.html

 

[blackcat]

Fair point.


I could say Lemond or Mottet.


So really you have no idea one way or the other.


You're kidding right... so I misunderstood these?



And that is just looking back on the first page.


You repeatedly call him dodgy and yet there is nothing really on him. Even if he has not been found guilty there is scant proof in this thread he has been involved in anything.


You are missing my point. Maybe not so much with Bassons but if Moncoutie had not been caught up with Cofidis I am confident that people would be accusing him of doping.

Rides for Cofidis. Check
Won numerous Tour stages. Check x 2
Won numerous Vuelta stages. Check x 4
King of the mountains. Check x 4

Now my guess is there are similar guys at that level that are clean and the only reason Moncoutie gets a pass is because of what came out of the police investigation. Pointing out associations is one thing but some people think that is proof in and of itself. See the difference?

The funny thing is that when Benotti69 had the chance to talk to a known drug dealer he soon changed his tune and started saying people were being OTT with him when they started having a go at said dealer.

As someone said on the thread



Comical.

Pedro, there are a few posters who agree with me, that Moncoutie, does just enough to get by. If you have no threshold for the appellation "clean", then Moncoutie aint. See his Alpe d'Huez timetrial in about 2003 Tour, in about 2002 or 2003 he came 13th or something on GC.

Moncoutie, like Evans, does enough. not egregious, may be just "recovery therapy" but they "do".

 

[Franklin]

So why did he say chances are that he is clean?

As in "It's possible".

My personal opinion here is that it's far beyond the ethical pale to associate with Landis/Hamilton's doctor. Be he clean or dirty, being involved with those people should mean a lifetime ban. *Wiggins once agreed*

And about "Cooke said that in 2008". Yes and she certainly shouldn't be crucified for what she said back then. But I do rail against her current statement!

Again, I'm absolutely shocked by the hypocrisie of the posters who call the Clinic fanatics when they rant and rave about someone posting a blanket accusation.

Those posters, we know who they are, display double standards on an amazing level. They should have been clamoring about the lack of evidence of Cooke and the smear she makes. So far it's just applause.

 

[Franklin]

For someone who deals in facts not opinions,you've certainly come up with a very subjective intepretation of Cooke's remarks. I understand omerta to be a bad thing, but you seem to take exception to her describing some of her experiences with doping because it implicates entire teams? You're joking right? I thought in cycling everyone is implicated anyway. Certainly the burden of proof with many people here lies with the riders. Here you very much are guilty until proven innocent.

Coming from you, the one who calls us fanatics this is simply sad. You are okay with a smear against all her former teammates. You are okay with that smear being published in the media (going far beyond this special interest forum). You should be the first to point out that what Nicole says doesn't help. Yet you are cheering this. Ridiculous.

Your double standard is beyond epic. And yes, it clearly has a national bias.

I find this morality and indignation for these riders and staff who can't defend themselves bemusing at best. In fact I'd go as far to say that you are arguing the toss, taking a negative line here because it suits your own narrative, and misrepresenting her words merely because of a 'party line', a 3 line whip so to speak.

Is this the same guy who calls the clinic fanatics? It's obviously okay to publicly accuse people without evidence if you are a Brittish superstar.

Of course its very touching that you are so concerned for all those potentially innocent riders and team management welfare.

I thought you were, but clearly I was wrong. As you fully well know I never accuse someone, I just post the facts.

remember Leinders? I posted the court orders when I called him a bad apple.

Nicole can just use her anecdotes to implicate her former teammates.

I very much doubt this is the last we will hear on this subject from Nicole Cooke. Hers could be a very compelling and illuminating story, if you are prepared to listen, and she has nothing to lose now she is retired. If there is anything going on at BC and Sky, the clinic has its perfect whistle blower.

Once again you show that all you have is your tremendous faith.

You rant against me who just posts facts and then double down and post your personal conviction. Hilarious.

Her statement is exactly what I look for riders to be saying right now

Why prefer words over acts?

All we know know is that cycling is dirty... W.O.W.

We also know in her former teams there was drug use. Now we know who rode there, but as we have no names we now have lumped them all in the suspects bag.

Had she said nothing more as: "I'm taking this problem to the union" and then together with the union followed up with a statement it would acually solve something.

Sorry, someone who had a brilliant career and after it's done has the courage to spit a huge loogie in the soup does not deserve my respect.

 

[Parker]

My personal opinion here is that it's far beyond the ethical pale to associate with Landis/Hamilton's doctor.

He's got nothing to do with Hamilton or Landis

 

[Franklin]

You're kidding right... so I misunderstood these?

*snip*

And that is just looking back on the first page.

There's no hard accusation in there at all.

1. What she posts is hypocritical even if she would be a paladin with angel wings.

- She lived through the sport and reaped the (welldeserved!) profits. Yet now she's done she spits in the soup, while accusing an unknown amount of cyclists. All we do know is that everyone she ever rode with is suddenly suspect.

- She of all people should know how these things can be deceptive considering she (as epitome of clean cycling!) herself had a doctor who is connected to doping. Maybe those supplements were indeed benign?

2. Associating with a dirty doctor indeed usually is a very good indicator. Wish it weren't so, but that's easily seen in cycling's history.

- The question is, is Fabio dirty? We don't know. I (personally!) question his ethics. The evidence indicates he has no problem working with dodgy doctors.
- and even if he is, is having a dirty doctor 100% proof? Of course not.

That said, what Benotti said is hardly taking an axe to Nicole's neck. He says that having a dirty doctor isn't promising. Not a word there is wrong. He certainly implies that he think Fabio is dirty and that part is discutable. But let's be fair, he certainly has some questionmarks around him... and that fit's with the hypocrisie angle.

Yes, I'm sure some here think she's a lieing doper, but so far that sentiment isn't brought forward very forcefuly. You can take issue with her statement even if you are (like me) in no way convinced she doped.

 

[Franklin]

He's got nothing to do with Hamilton or Landis

I advise you to read up on my earlier posts. He personally hasn't... but that's not the issue. He worked with Thomas Klimaschka after those scandals.

And if we look at his past with Bougyes other medical colleagues pop up who have been implicated recently (at that team!).

This is personal (but definitely supported by some pro's!), I am of the opinion that associating with these people is wrong and for medical personal enough for a ban.

A doctor should have the highest standards. Working with Klimaschka is the opposite.


To go back to the issue at hand. Nicole should know that evidence can be missleading. She had a wonderful clean career, but had some issue due to the name of her doctor. Yet nowhere does she show that restraint or voice that realization.

That's indeed hypocrisie.

 

[Benotti69]

I advise you to read up on my earlier posts. He personally hasn't... but that's not the issue. He worked with Thomas Klimaschka after those scandals.

And if we look at his past with Bougyes other medical colleagues pop up who have been implicated recently (at that team!).

And this is personal (but definitely supported by some pro's!), I am of the opinion that associating with these people is wrong and for medical personal enough for a ban.

A doctor should have the highest standards. Working with Klimaschka is the opposite.

Interesting that Wiggins was saying that anyone with a 1% implication of doping should be banned.

Amazing how his fans now wont accept less than 100% proof of doping, in a sport riddled with performance enhancement.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Bartolucci

....To go back to the issue at hand. Nicole should know that evidence can be missleading. She had a wonderful clean career, but had some issue due to the name of her doctor. Yet nowhere does she show that restraint or voice that realization.
That's indeed hypocrisie.

She actually does go there in interviews from 2008...every one I read she mentions Bartolucci. But if your knees arent healing and you are contemplating retiring...why go to a dodgy doctor ???

Why not go to for example..The Infamous STEADMAN CLINIC IN VAIL ????

http://thesteadmanclinic.com/

our experience and research have led to significant advances in the fields of orthopaedics and sports medicine

Because they wouldnt be giving her steroids to fix the knees like Barto probably did.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I advise you to read up on my earlier posts. He personally hasn't... but that's not the issue. He worked with Thomas Klimaschka after those scandals.

And if we look at his past with Bougyes other medical colleagues pop up who have been implicated recently (at that team!).

This is personal (but definitely supported by some pro's!), I am of the opinion that associating with these people is wrong and for medical personal enough for a ban.

A doctor should have the highest standards. Working with Klimaschka is the opposite.

To go back to the issue at hand. Nicole should know that evidence can be missleading. She had a wonderful clean career, but had some issue due to the name of her doctor. Yet nowhere does she show that restraint or voice that realization.

That's indeed hypocrisie.

He was with Bonjour, before it became Bougyes and it's various reinventions.

I make that 4 degrees of separation from Hamilton or Landis.
Given the well known theory of 6 degrees of separation, that's quite a stretch.
I bet if you were able to trace every rider out there, you would find some kind of a dodgy link, within 3.

 

[xcleigh]

Nicole can just use her anecdotes to implicate her former teammates.

What, kind of like Betsy and Emma using their anecdotes to implicate Armstrong?

 

[Benotti69]

What, kind of like Betsy and Emma using their anecdotes to implicate Armstrong?

Do you think they are lying? They had nothing to gain by lying, Cooke has.

 

[xcleigh]

Do you think they are lying? They had nothing to gain by lying, Cooke has.

Of course they're not lying! My point is that anecdotes are a perfectly reasonable source of evidence. Franklin obviously doesn't.

Out of interest what has Cooke got to gain from lying? i.e accusing others of doping on retirement from cycling. As opposed to quietly retiring.

 

[Benotti69]

Of course they're not lying! My point is that anecdotes are a perfectly reasonable source of evidence. Franklin obviously doesn't.

Out of interest what has Cooke got to gain from lying? i.e accusing others of doping on retirement from cycling. As opposed to quietly retiring.

Getting in your denial 1st. An old Armstrong trick.

Cooke may have felt the sport owes her something for paving the way for women's cycling and that she got a raw deal from the TeamGB set up. So she had anger to vent. Maybe she wanted a coaching job or some role but was not offered.

I would've thought someone like Cooke would be right up TeamGBs street. She is a kind of Robert Millar of her generation, lots to offer but viewed as too independent for a team.

 

[xcleigh]

Getting in your denial 1st. An old Armstrong trick.

Cooke may have felt the sport owes her something for paving the way for women's cycling and that she got a raw deal from the TeamGB set up. So she had anger to vent. Maybe she wanted a coaching job or some role but was not offered.

I would've thought someone like Cooke would be right up TeamGBs street. She is a kind of Robert Millar of her generation, lots to offer but viewed as too independent for a team.

Eh you lost me on the 1st denial bit. And the rest makes no more sense, what point are you making. (Oh and thanks for doing the usual thing of always relating everything to Amstrong. An old trick of certain clinic posters)

 

[Franklin]

He was with Bonjour, before it became Bougyes and it's various reinventions.

He was with Bougyes afaik, exactly with the same management and colleague doctors involved in the Europcar scandal. Now of course, they could always have been clean and started doping in 2011.

I make that 4 degrees of separation from Hamilton or Landis.
Given the well known theory of 6 degrees of separation, that's quite a stretch.
I bet if you were able to trace every rider out there, you would find some kind of a dodgy link, within 3.

Klimaschka is not 6 degrees of separation, he was absolutely directly involved. Now unless we think a medic at Phonak involved with Botero, Hamilton and Landis really did not get involved I'd say it's actually a huge stretch to think he's anything but dirty. Yet Bartalucci worked with him lin later years.

And Mellow, yes, I think medical personel with dodgy links (and not a squeak of havng an issue with those links) should be banned. You switch towards riders, but I focus on the medics. Working with dodgy colleagues makes you culpable in my eyes. A doctor has to be of the highest ethical standard.

I don't say Bartalucci is directly involved, but man, unless he's the most naive paladin ever in cycling, he has been at teams (Phonak...) and worked with colleagues that raise eyebrows to the temple.

 

[Franklin]

Of course they're not lying! My point is that anecdotes are a perfectly reasonable source of evidence. Franklin obviously doesn't.

Pray tell, who can defend against these anecdotes?

Lance had his chance to do exactly that and for the record, Betsy's anecdote was in the presence of several people who could but didn't collaberate her story (The doctor..).

Now unless you was there when Nicole opened the fridge, I would say the difference is "quite" large.

Out of interest what has Cooke got to gain from lying? i.e accusing others of doping on retirement from cycling. As opposed to quietly retiring.

She doesn't have to lie to make this wrong. Again, all her teammates are now smeared. It's classy. Especially since she certainly got her gains out of that awful world (deservedly so, but it's spitting in the soup when she herself is safely out of it all).

And about what to gain? Well it's a fantastic P.R. act. Family-values, a kids-dream, getting the most of it, rejecting the dope-devil.... it's an amazing feel good story about Nicole against her evil colleagues and managers. Everyone can see the profit angle here. => I'm not saying profit is her angle, but you asked.

Heck, it could just be spite, an emotional goal.

I certainly don't think Nicole had any ulterior motive, I just think it's a worthless gesture.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Franklin: Slightly at cross purposes, maybe. Cooke to Landis/Hamilton, but OK, I get your drift.
Interesting that he was also at Française des Jeux, given that's Marc Madiot, old 'cyclisme a deux vitesses' , himself.

 

[Franklin]

Franklin: Slightly at cross purposes, maybe. Cooke to Landis/Hamilton, but OK, I get your drift.
Interesting that he was also at Française des Jeux, given that's Marc Madiot, old 'cyclisme a deux vitesses' , himself.

Cooke has absolutely nothing to do with Landis.... I see that you don't think I make that link, but let me repeat for those who don't understand my point:

There is nothing that connects Cooke remotely with Phonak.

There is nothing that connects Bartalucci directly with Landis/Hamilton. Suggesting that he was involved is really farfetched.

But he seems to have no issue working with those who do work with them. And two of the teams he worked at Phonak/Bougyes (former beyond reasonable doubt/second still being researched by the justice department) have system wide problems.

He can certainly be the innocent guy who was there at the wrong time, but this is pro-cycling

And above is no slam on Nicole... but should make her a bit hesistant in her statement... obviously looks can decieve/riders can beyond their own doing become member of the wrong team without themselves being dirty.

 

[xcleigh]

Pray tell, who can defend against these anecdotes?

Lance had his chance to do exactly that and for the record, Betsy's anecdote was in the presence of several people who could but didn't collaberate her story (The doctor..).

Now unless you was there when Nicole opened the fridge, I would say the difference is "quite" large.



She doesn't have to lie to make this wrong. Again, all her teammates are now smeared. It's classy. Especially since she certainly got her gains out of that awful world (deservedly so, but it's spitting in the soup when she herself is safely out of it all).

And about what to gain? Well it's a fantastic P.R. act. Family-values, a kids-dream, getting the most of it, rejecting the dope-devil.... it's an amazing feel good story about Nicole against her evil colleagues and managers. Everyone can see the profit angle here. => I'm not saying profit is her angle, but you asked.

Heck, it could just be spite, an emotional goal.

I certainly don't think Nicole had any ulterior motive, I just think it's a worthless gesture.

So your objection is not the anecdote in of itself but the fact it doesn't name anyone specifically, that's fine.

Surely not everyone is so PR aware and money driven though, are they? The fact is we (at the moment) don't know the reason for the statement and quite frankly all the speculation gets to be quite pointless.

 

[Benotti69]

Eh you lost me on the 1st denial bit. And the rest makes no more sense, what point are you making. (Oh and thanks for doing the usual thing of always relating everything to Amstrong. An old trick of certain clinic posters)

A trick Cooke learnt

 

[Benotti69]

Franklin: Slightly at cross purposes, maybe. Cooke to Landis/Hamilton, but OK, I get your drift.
Interesting that he was also at Française des Jeux, given that's Marc Madiot, old 'cyclisme a deux vitesses' , himself.

Madiot did nothing to help Bassons.

 

[xcleigh]

A trick Cooke learnt

Fair point.