Nicole Cooke attacks drug cheats in the womens peloton

[coinneach]

Indeed, it's absolutely crazy that we even wonder why she chooses to get involved with a dope-doctor.

How dare we point out real world connections (aka. facts) and notaccept her own words which fail to mention her involvement with that doctor.

FAITH is so much nicer than FACTS.

How dare we be critical! How dare we question someone when his/her acts belie their noble words!

Facts and acts are so inconvenient when we have those blissful words.

Well, if you were interested in FACTS, you'd know she has been very open about her involvement with the said doctor, whose 1 brush with the authorities in 12 years (involving 7 other doctors at the Giro) did not result in any charges, as quoted in article in the Independent.
In fact, this is in sharp contrast to male cyclists & teams who keep their connections with doctors as secret as they can.

If we don't listen to people like her, we'll never get out of this mess.
Sometimes, you have to make a judgement about who you believe and who you don't.
Happens in a court of law as well as an internet forum.
I believe her: I still wouldn't rule out a slim possibility she may have had treatment from said doctor which she was not fully aware of, but even if she did, it doesn't dilute the importance of her message.

 

[Franklin]

Quite simply I find the worth attributed to an athlete statement nonsensical. A good media trainig, an endearing personality, a flair for words, a good education, everything can produce a heartfelt statement.

The problem is that it has been done by those on both lines of the divide, making it's worth in determining if someone is clean or not worthless. And considering Nichole, well, somehow there is at least a whiff of hypocrisy.

Is she such a godly talent she beats all those dopers? Could she explain how athletes who visit good doctors are a victim of the bad press they get? Without such content it's a rant on how she was noble in a dirty world.

 

[dadane]

Just wondering what thoughts you have, or if you feel the same way about Marianne Vos?

Nice question. Marianne Vos has an aura of innocence created by the stories of her difficult past. (c.f. Victoria Pendleton, Lance Armstrong, etc.). Where is the line between fact and misdirection?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Indeed, it's absolutely crazy that we even wonder why she chooses to get involved with a dope-doctor.

How dare we point out real world connections (aka. facts) and notaccept her own words which fail to mention the darker stories surrounding that doctor.*

FAITH is so much nicer than FACTS.

How dare we be critical! How dare we question someone when his/her acts belie their noble words!

Facts and acts are so inconvenient when we have those blissful words.


* Some crazy people would say that it would be rather appropriate to explain about that if you push out blanket accusations. But those people simply have no faith!

Have you ever considered debating a point without being facetious and resorting to sarcasm? You have a point, make it, don't try to mock my position or my motivation for having it. Moronic

 

[JimmyFingers]

Noble god's creatures (women) never ever could lie (unless they are as unwomanlike as Longo). Whereas men like Lance, Floyd, Tyler, Carl are obviously flawed creatures, it is absolutely inconceivable that a woman is in any way hypocritical.

Her words, her inflection, it's all so much better than those silly connections with a dodgy doctor. The nerve that people have to even look at those facts when such a lovely creature tells her story! The notion that an athlete(a woman!) might not tell the truth! The idea that an athlete convinces him/herself that what he/she does is not cheating (and what the others do is!).

Everyone looking at the facts is quite simply a horrible person! Faith always beats out facts!

Again, pointless drivel that brings nothing to the debate

 

[Franklin]

I believe her: I still wouldn't rule out a slim possibility she may have had treatment from said doctor which she was not fully aware of, but even if she did, it doesn't dilute the importance of her message.

Is her message so visionary? I heard this many, many times before.

It might be (heck, probably is!) heartfelt and true... but it's about as revealing as a London fog.

Women athletes dope. Cyclists dope. It's a huge problem.

We know... This statement of Nichole is endearing and makes us all feel better, but it's made more important than it is.

You know what really, really would help?

If sport-unions start vetting doctors and kick out dodgy doctors (as a younger Brad once wanted).

We can not trust the athletes to fix this. Because they are human. They certainly need our support and play a role... but the unions need to fix this. We cannot hope the riders solve this.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

She was riding on Italian teams. End of.

So what nation of team(s) would not be suspicious?

 

[Franklin]

Again, pointless drivel that brings nothing to the debate

In other threads you also started to balk when someone pointed out facts.

What I would LOVE if you would say:

Nicole made a great statement. It's problematic that she was involved with a doctor. Everyone involved in sport should ditch those doctors.

However every time this is brought up with a Brittish cyclist (your only interest it seems), you avoid, stop posting for awhile and defend.

So my question: Why should Brittish sportsmen be allowed to associate with dodgy doctors? Why should we not question that?

Why don't you question it?

Believing a stament is drivel.

Facts are what we should look at.

 

[Franklin]

So what nation of team(s) would not be suspicious?

Indeed... none.

The first team that actively outs doctors get's my vote. So far Garmin comes closest *sigh*.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Indeed, it's absolutely crazy that we even wonder why she chooses to get involved with a dope-doctor.

So what do we know about this doctor? Was he actually found guilty of anything?

 

[Franklin]

So what do we know about this doctor? Was he actually found guilty of anything?

Nope and at no time did I say she should be crucified for this fact!*

However, there is absolutely a valid reason to point out that indeed her doctor was implicated at one time and that it did coincide with a remarkable successful period in her career.

She blanket accuses others. It's absolutely reasonable to point out her own associations, if just to showcase the huge tangle it is. If the doctor is innocent he's a victim.. and a huge part of the discussion why we have such a problem to sort out bad from good!

Again, Benotti's earlier post was blasted because of the character of her statement. I have seen that reaction many times before. And it simply has no merit. A statement is a statement. Nothing else.


* note that this black/white thinking is very common here. Somehow if you question a team or riders you automatically are accused of "saying someone is a cheat". The problem is that we usually do not know! And that's why we question them.

 

[JimmyFingers]

In other threads you also started to balk when someone pointed out facts.

In both posts I quoted you didn't point out facts, you made provocative, facetious comments that mocked people's opinions and assumed negative motivations for having those opinions. If you you want to engage in debating facts then I suggest engaging maturely rather than this schoolyard approach.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Nope and at no time did I say she should be crucified for this fact!*

I honestly had not heard of this guy so wanted to know a bit more. Was not accusing you of anything just wanted to know if you knew anything.

However, there is absolutely a valid reason to point out that indeed her doctor was implicated at one time and that it did coincide with a remarkable successful period in her career.

She had been successful from a very young age.

She blanket accuses others. It's absolutely reasonable to point out her own associations, if just to showcase the huge tangle it is. If the doctor is innocent he's a victim.. and a huge part of the discussion why we have such a problem to sort out bad from good!

By all means point out her associations but already this guy is a 'doping' doctor but as yet I have not seen or heard anything to support this fact (on this thread).

Again, Benotti's earlier post was blasted because of the character of her statement. I have seen that reaction many times before. And it simply has no merit. A statement is a statement. Nothing else.

A statement is a statement.. really? Funny that when Wiggins came out with his outburst to some it was an indication that he dopes. Now Cooke makes a measured anti-doping statement it also seems that she is a doper to the same crowd.

* note that this black/white thinking is very common here. Somehow if you question a team or riders you automatically are accused of "saying someone is a cheat". The problem is that we usually do not know!

Come on... there are plenty of people who accuse people of being a cheat with minimal evidence or even no evidence. Do you honestly think that Bassons or Moncoutie would have been seen as clean here if it did not come out in an investigation. One riding for Festina and one for Cofidis...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Nope and at no time did I say she should be crucified for this fact!*

However, there is absolutely a valid reason to point out that indeed her doctor was implicated at one time and that it did coincide with a remarkable successful period in her career.

She blanket accuses others. It's absolutely reasonable to point out her own associations, if just to showcase the huge tangle it is. If the doctor is innocent he's a victim.. and a huge part of the discussion why we have such a problem to sort out bad from good!

Again, Benotti's earlier post was blasted because of the character of her statement. I have seen that reaction many times before. And it simply has no merit. A statement is a statement. Nothing else.


* note that this black/white thinking is very common here. Somehow if you question a team or riders you automatically are accused of "saying someone is a cheat". The problem is that we usually do not know! And that's why we question them.

Like this: a constructive point.

As Pedro points out, Bartalucci has only the whiff of taint, subject to raid in San Remo in 2001 and subsequently the indictment was dropped. While I appreciate even squeaky doctors working with closely with athletes does raise suspicions, let alone one with a negative association, there shouldn't simply be a knee jerk reaction to say 'doper'.

Particularly given the statement she made. While it could simply be a tremendous falsification, which as Sniper said would make her a hypocrite of monumental proportions, but why draw attention to a doctor if he was running a doping programme for her almost in the same breath as launching one of the fiercest attacks on dopers I have yet heard from a professional cyclist.

Unless you're saying its some kind of huge double bluff?

Yes have suspicions about an athlete, it is your perogative and even duty, but at least applaud the passion and sentiment in that statement, it is what we have been looking for from the sport for a while, instead of this 'doping ended in 2006' or the 2008 'truce' mantra we have been hearing from the majority of them, most recently and for me sadly, from Lizzie Armistead in response to Cooke's statement.

I get the impression more is to come from Cooke. And I also hope she may address some of the concerns you raise.

 

[MartinGT]

I havent read all of this thread.

I read Cooke's statement yesterday and its pretty powerful stuff. A nice swipe at the inept guys at BC.

I see Lizzie Armitstead has had a go too. She then seemed to back track on Twitter to the applauds of "Well said Lizzie" blah blah.

What annoys me is the "Were a new generation of cyclists" Yes you are, but we had this post Festina and we had this before that etc. Millar a prime example. He still doped!

 

[Cycle Chic]

Just ask her

surely the simple answer is to just ask her. When Cycling News interviews her or any other jourmalist why not just ask what she has to say to her critics that she worked with Bartolucci and thereby her name has suspicion.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I havent read all of this thread.

I read Cooke's statement yesterday and its pretty powerful stuff. A nice swipe at the inept guys at BC.

I see Lizzie Armitstead has had a go too. She then seemed to back track on Twitter to the applauds of "Well said Lizzie" blah blah.

What annoys me is the "Were a new generation of cyclists" Yes you are, but we had this post Festina and we had this before that etc. Millar a prime example. He still doped!

I was disappointed with Lizzie, although I did come through a heavy media filter so I wonder if what she said has been twisted to make a good story. I don't like this general lines that we are hearing from so many current pros about how the sport is clean now and doping is in the past. It isn't confronting the issue.

I do wonder if damage limitation is the agenda. Nicole illustrates the knock on effect doping scandals in the mens tour has had in the women's side of the sport, and how negatively impactful they have been. I wonder if Lizzie, as a member of a newly formed team, is anxious that more problems will arise. As I said women's cycle, in this country at least, has been riding a wave of public interest and support since the Olympics, Nicole's words could hurt that.

 

[MartinGT]

I was disappointed with Lizzie, although I did come through a heavy media filter so I wonder if what she said has been twisted to make a good story. I don't like this general lines that we are hearing from so many current pros about how the sport is clean now and doping is in the past. It isn't confronting the issue.

I do wonder if damage limitation is the agenda. Nicole illustrates the knock on effect doping scandals in the mens tour has had in the women's side of the sport, and how negatively impactful they have been. I wonder if Lizzie, as a member of a newly formed team, is anxious that more problems will arise. As I said women's cycle, in this country at least, has been riding a wave of public interest and support since the Olympics, Nicole's words could hurt that.

By the sounds of things on Twitter etc, she was either back tracking OR it did get twisted somehow.

I agree though, the current Pro's are all (well, the majority) seemingly towing the same party line.

Alex Dowsett replied to her slating of Lance as "Well said" Oh, she he has changed his tune from him being a "legend"

It's sad looking at some of the younger pro's especially from BC, they seem to have all been brain washed with "It was dirty, now its clean" It maybe cleaner than the early 90s, but its not fully clean and I dont think it will ever be fully clean.

I agree too that the women and even the men are holding back because at the end of the day, its their livelihood at stake.

 

[Benotti69]

So what nation of team(s) would not be suspicious?

Italian cycling is a pharmacists dream. We have lots of evidence of that. It is not restircted to men. Dope does not descriminate. I would say that no nationality is free of suspicion but the poorer nations tend not to have the finance to dope to the levels of nations where the sport is more organised.

I notice Cooke had nothing to say about Longo. She picked on Jeanson and Armstrong. She could've lobbed Ricco in there and been part of lots who have had a go at those lot. Plenty of men have had shots at Ricco and we would be laughing saying look in the mirror son.

I would like to think Cooke was a LeMond of her generation, but she won a hell of a lot during the dark years of the sport, something LeMond couldn't do. I question that.

Note: There is a Marianne Vos thread and posters should not bring Vos into the Cooke thread.

 

[Franklin]

Like this: a constructive point.

As Pedro points out, Bartalucci has only the whiff of taint, subject to raid in San Remo in 2001 and subsequently the indictment was dropped.

Did you check into the working history of this paladin doctor?

I have. He worked with

- Hubert Long (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Jean-Pierre Goillandeau (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Thomas Klimaschka (Hamilton, Botero and Landis)

Now Fabio isn't directly named in those cases, but he sure seems to have little qualms working with shady colleagues.

The "he was exonerated and that's it" is really pooh-poohing without taking a second look.

While I appreciate even squeaky doctors working with closely with athletes does raise suspicions, let alone one with a negative association, there shouldn't simply be a knee jerk reaction to say 'doper'.

Which I never have You could go through all m posts here and never find that. However, I keep a very well grounded scepticism due to the things called history and facts.

You however decide based on your gut feeling someone is innocent. And everytime I point out nasty facts you go into avoidance modus. Your love for the athletes makes any criticism a personal attack on the riders.

Particularly given the statement she made. While it could simply be a tremendous falsification, which as Sniper said would make her a hypocrite of monumental proportions, but why draw attention to a doctor if he was running a doping programme for her almost in the same breath as launching one of the fiercest attacks on dopers I have yet heard from a professional cyclist.

Flaming nonsense or you simply started watching sport yesterday. Remember Carl Lewis ranting on Bennie? Hypocrite statements from human beings are a fact of life.

And about the doctor, you mean how riders acknowledged "working" with Ferrari, but denying he subscribed dope? Again, this is simply something that happens all the time and is no proof either way.

Unless you're saying its some kind of huge double bluff?

Yes have suspicions about an athlete, it is your perogative and even duty, but at least applaud the passion and sentiment in that statement, it is what we have been looking for from the sport for a while, instead of this 'doping ended in 2006' or the 2008 'truce' mantra we have been hearing from the majority of them, most recently and for me sadly, from Lizzie Armistead in response to Cooke's statement.

Again, the vehement passion has been seen before. It's nice, but it proofs nothing.

I get the impression more is to come from Cooke. And I also hope she may address some of the concerns you raise.

We will see if that happens, but her character or intonation have no bearing on the truth at all. It's all about facts and actions.

 

[Franklin]

So what do we know about this doctor? Was he actually found guilty of anything?

Well, we can see that he seems to have no issues working with dirty colleagues.

- Hubert Long (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Jean-Pierre Goillandeau (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Thomas Klimaschka (Hamilton, Botero and Landis)

That doesn't say he's necessarily dirty, but that list of close colleagues is not reassuring.

 

[Benotti69]

So what do we know about this doctor? Was he actually found guilty of anything?

Pedro, this kind of statement is meaningless in sport. Look at Armstrong! Look at Longo. Look at who runs the sport. Look what doctors are still working in the sport who have extremely dodgy reputations, Ibarguren for 1.

Lefrevre sacked Leipheimer because he ratted out the sport, not because he doped. Leipheimer should've if he was truly interested in changing the sport told WADA about what happens on OPQS.

Dont believe this sport is cleaning itself up never mind what JV, Millar and Sky would love to have everyone believe.

 

[Franklin]

I honestly had not heard of this guy so wanted to know a bit more. Was not accusing you of anything just wanted to know if you knew anything.

Well, we can see that he seems to have no issues working with dirty colleagues.

- Hubert Long (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Jean-Pierre Goillandeau (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Thomas Klimaschka (Hamilton, Botero and Landis)

That doesn't say he's necessarily dirty, but that list of close colleagues is not reassuring.

She had been successful from a very young age.

I won't pull the LA Godwin, so I'll just point towards jan Ulrich.

By all means point out her associations but already this guy is a 'doping' doctor but as yet I have not seen or heard anything to support this fact (on this thread).

There is no hard evidence. Chances are he's clean. However, he seems to have no qualms with dodgy associates, which is not a great sign.

A statement is a statement.. really? Funny that when Wiggins came out with his outburst to some it was an indication that he dopes. Now Cooke makes a measured anti-doping statement it also seems that she is a doper to the same crowd.

Put that one into perspective please. The anger was about his earlier very good statements, namely "question everyone and remove any doc with even a whiff of dope", being changed into "how dare you question me and my team!".

And so far I have seen no "She's a doper", I do see: "Nicole is rather vocal when she has a connection to a dodgy doctor." I maintain that that is indeed a very good point. And yet a lot of the retorts were about how good her statement felt. Indeed, Benotti got fried about even bringing it up.

Come on... there are plenty of people who accuse people of being a cheat with minimal evidence or even no evidence. Do you honestly think that Bassons or Moncoutie would have been seen as clean here if it did not come out in an investigation. One riding for Festina and one for Cofidis...

Had Bassons not clearly been outed due to his stance we would have as much info on him as we have on Damiano "I use a sticker as tattoo" Cunego.

Bassons is a victim and deserves applause. But in his case we have pretty strong evidence he was indeed clean.

And about Moncoutie we have a similar thing. Riders and DS's point him out to be not involved.

On Cooke we have Cooke's words. See the difference?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Did you check into the working history of this paladin doctor?

I have. He worked with

- Hubert Long (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Jean-Pierre Goillandeau (Bouguyes Telecom Scandal)
- Thomas Klimaschka (Hamilton, Botero and Landis)

Now Fabio isn't directly named in those cases, but he sure seems to have little qualms working with shady colleagues.

The "he was exonerated and that's it" is really pooh-poohing without taking a second look.

Still very tennuous connections to consider him a doping Doctor. A question mark, nothing more.

Which I never have You could go through all m posts here and never find that. However, I keep a very well grounded scepticism due to the things called history and facts.

You however decide based on your gut feeling someone is innocent. And everytime I point out nasty facts you go into avoidance modus. Your love for the athletes makes any criticism a personal attack on the riders.

You seem very knowledgeable in what motivates me. Point out where I consider 'criticism' as a personal attack on the riders please.

Flaming nonsense or you simply started watching sport yesterday. Remember Carl Lewis ranting on Bennie? Hypocrite statements from human beings are a fact of life.

And about the doctor, you mean how riders acknowledged "working" with Ferrari, but denying he subscribed dope? Again, this is simply something that happens all the time and is no proof either way.

Acknowledge working with him when pressed by journalists and caught out by eye-witness accounts, or volunteering the information freely, when not asked about it and there is no pressing need to talk about? This is her retirement statement, there are no accusations of doping to be answered. There is absolutely no need for her to say what she said. She is not being quizzed, she has nothing to defend. She was talking through the experiences she had throughout her career.

Again, the vehement passion has been seen before. It's nice, but it proofs nothing.

We will see if that happens, but her character or intonation have no bearing on the truth at all. It's all about facts and actions.

Facts are very, very thin on the ground in this place, yet conclusions are drawn from the flimsiest of evidence. In the context she said it I am prepared to take what she said at face value. You are not, yet you claim it is based on facts while mine is gut instinct. I'd say both are gut instinct personally, and of course we are each entitled to our opinions.

Thank you for leaving the sarcasm behind.

 

[taiwan]

I can’t help thinking that the cheats win on the way up and the way down.

She has a point there.