Pereiro goes berserk

[Zam_Olyas]

Football journalist..i think he is irish
On twitter.
MDelaneyST Miguel Delaney
Wow. Cyclist Oscar Pereiro has made some extraordinary and very damaging claims about Zinedine Zidane cyclingnews.com/news/pereiro-b…

 

[El Pistolero]

Football journalist..i think he is irish
On twitter.
MDelaneyST Miguel Delaney
Wow. Cyclist Oscar Pereiro has made some extraordinary and very damaging claims about Zinedine Zidane cyclingnews.com/news/pereiro-b…

I smell a lawsuit.

 

[robertocarlos]

No law suit for Pereiro.
I think that cycling, is the sport with the worst reputation, but not the dirtiest. Let's look at soccer in recent times and the clen cases from Mexican footballers
anybody remembers zico the Brazilian player that admitted being an experiment like captain America. Track and field? How about those athletes in their mid 20's getting braces. The reason nobody attacks those athletes as much is because they are part of a regional culture and represent a cultural identity, unfortunately cycling does not. In Mexico we say al perro más flaco se le van las pulgas"

 

[Albatros]

Football journalist..i think he is irish
On twitter.
MDelaneyST Miguel Delaney
Wow. Cyclist Oscar Pereiro has made some extraordinary and very damaging claims about Zinedine Zidane cyclingnews.com/news/pereiro-b…

Pereiro claims are not extraordinary. Zidane has been long suspected as a doper.

http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-football/french-team-doctor-puts-98-squad-on-doping-book-tour.html

I wonder if the very famous Real Madrid player Manzano saw at Eufemiano "clinic" was the French man.

 

[joe_papp]

If the hosts were cycling guys, then yes it's deflection. But they're not. They are people on the outside throwing stones at him, whilst standing in a carefully constructed glass house.

There is doping in cycling, lots of it, and Óscar Pereiro will have seen it first hand, will have been it first hand. But he's also not stupid, and he knows that there is doping in football. And he knows that it is treated very differently which is why nobody talks about it, nobody knows about it. And whether he doped or not, it doesn't change the hypocrisy or the ignorance shown by those around him here...

I agree with the logic of what you're saying and I'm happy that Pereiro stood up for himself/cycling in the face of unfair commentary from representatives/fans from an equally-dirty but completely free-from-being-persecuted sport like fútbol. My statement that it was rich of him to bemoan doping was made in the context of our general knowledge and understanding of the corruption in cycling...how we can see the hypocrisy and irony.

I still though think that it was pure folly to award the 2006 Tour to him after it was stripped from Landis. Likewise it would be pointless to take any of Armstrong's wins if he was convicted of cheating just to give them to the next-placed-rider who is also likely the next doper. When there is an after-the-fact anti-doping action like that and no possibility of subjecting the runner-up to the same kind of extended investigation, and therefore no way of ensuring that he was any less dirty, to not make a mockery of the Tour in the future, if you declass the winner, the title that year should be vacated. It makes for lack of harmony in the record books, sure, but otherwise you're just perpetuating a myth by passing along what's already in a sense become a tainted crown at that point.

If Contador is stripped of his Tour, Schleck should refuse to accept the win. That's a lot to ask, I know, and I would never have expected Pereiro to do anything other than grab at the title of champion and cry about how Landis had wronged him and the sport, but if someone like LeMond can refuse to wear yellow after inheriting off the back of a broken Rolf Sorensen in 1991, then there's hope that someone might make a more principled but controversial decision not to accept the overall win as a result of anything other than events happening on the road (ie, don't accept being elevated to race win to replace a "dirty" champion when you yourself may very well have been competing on equal terms, actually).

Probably will never happen though.

 

[Albatros]

No law suit for Pereiro.
I think that cycling, is the sport with the worst reputation, but not the dirtiest. Let's look at soccer in recent times and the clen cases from Mexican footballers
anybody remembers zico the Brazilian player that admitted being an experiment like captain America. Track and field? How about those athletes in their mid 20's getting braces. The reason nobody attacks those athletes as much is because they are part of a regional culture and represent a cultural identity, unfortunately cycling does not. In Mexico we say al perro más flaco se le van las pulgas"

I don't think you can get more dopers than in cycling if only for the real need of artificial help to survive the terrible exertions cyclist have to endure, but I agree that in other sports it could be as high as in cycling. In football the sport I follow the most, everywhere you look, past and present, the shadow of doping is there. Doctors, ex players, masseurs and a few journalists have spoken about widespread doping. The only difference is that antidoping controls are far less exhaustive and probably more cases are covered up by the football authorities. After all, football is in many countries the most followed sport and generates enough money as to not put in jeopardy the credibility of the sport.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Pereiro claims are not extraordinary. Zidane has been long suspected as a doper.

http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-football/french-team-doctor-puts-98-squad-on-doping-book-tour.html

I wonder if the very famous Real Madrid player Manzano saw at Eufemiano "clinic" was the French man.

tell miguel delaney that its not extraordinary since its him who said its extraordinary.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You obviously haven't got a clue about what I know and what I don't know. Not only that, you are been very disrespectful.

And I don't wish I was 14 cause the past is the past, but you even would come up short if you twisted the numbers, little internet warrior.

Stick to what you know which it is not the effects of doping on cyclists.

So you believe everybody is doping?

Moncoutié does not win his races by crushing the opposition. He goes in the breakaway and proves the strongest in that. Doping may help characters, but it is not a lightswitch, you press it and it makes you better. Moncoutié chooses the breaks he is part of well (where he is the strongest climber) and doses his efforts well (not doing too much work) so that he has enough strength left to complete. He also always rides on the back of the péloton because he is not interested in the GC; this means he loses time in any splits and is no threat to any of the established GC men, so nobody chases him down when he attacks. It's a good little niche, and one which is entirely plausible and possible without doping.

Also, because of the testing, doping is less in cycling than it used to be. By that I don't necessarily mean fewer people are doing it - but I mean the same number of people are doing LESS of it. The days of Bjarne Riis speed on Hautacam are gone. Riders are still doping, but they can't get away with that kind of quantity of it anymore. Hence the difference between the clean riders and the dirty riders is more easily bridged by a good talent.

David Moncoutié is a rider that most people are willing to accept is clean. We have testimonies from his own team management, from dopers who were caught, and from other riders in the péloton. We have his own character, attitude and behaviour. And we have his palmarès.

And yet, you, who has not heard of Moncoutié until today, feel you can judge that you know more about him than the people who've raced with him, trained with him, managed him. Obviously they must have something to hide, right? Except that Gaumont voluntarily told of all of his teammates doping. Except Tombak and Moncoutié.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I agree with the logic of what you're saying and I'm happy that Pereiro stood up for himself/cycling in the face of unfair commentary from representatives/fans from an equally-dirty but completely free-from-being-persecuted sport like fútbol. My statement that it was rich of him to bemoan doping was made in the context of our general knowledge and understanding of the corruption in cycling...how we can see the hypocrisy and irony.

I didn't really detect a bemoaning of doping though. He said that cycling was full of it and that "somos tontos" - using the first person plural and including himself in it. He was bewailing the persecution of some sports and protection of others; but even more so, the smug attitudes of these 'others' and the journalists (such as these *** he was talking to) towards the persecuted ones (of which there are a few, but cycling is the most obvious and biggest/clearest example).

 

[robertocarlos]

@ albatross
On the other hand cycling is a lot less competitive than other sports. Let's look at track everybody on the track has a reason to dope, because everybody has a chance to win the race in cycling it is not really needed for some domestiques. In soccer I want to be as big and fast as possible. There was an article in a Mexican news paper talking about the extinction of the creative midfielder, because soccer had become much more physical.

 

[mariposa]

+1million
"...takes the heat off of cycling" - and themselves.
Pereiro complaining about others' doping is rich. The only viable action after taking the TdF away from Floyd would've been to leave the 1st place vacant. Because in awarding it to Pereiro, they simply declared as winner the doper who rode the race quickest w/o getting caught. Bravo.

And why should anyone take any account of your opinion?

 

[Berzin]

Anybody remembers zico the Brazilian player that admitted being an experiment like captain America.

Are you referring to Zico, whose real name is Arthur Antunes Coimbra and is considered one of the best Brazilian footballers that ever lived? I'm curious as to where one could look up this information...I'm not questioning the veracity of your statement, I just want to read more on it.

Track and field? How about those athletes in their mid 20's getting braces.

I'm not understanding the correlation between PED use and athletes in their 20's getting braces. In third world countries it is common for people in their later years to get braces simply because they don't have the money to so so when they are younger.

The reason nobody attacks those athletes as much is because they are part of a regional culture and represent a cultural identity, unfortunately cycling does not. In Mexico we say al perro más flaco se le van las pulgas".

This is very true, but there are also some very well-organized interests in sports like track and field and football who do not want scandal in any way, shape or form to sully their gravy train. They are also better protected and better funded than anything we see in cycling.

The closest we have to a "mafia" in cycling is Bruyneel and his alliance with the UCI. How a man who is under suspicion and/or investigation involving the biggest doping fraud cycling has ever seen and is allowed not only to field a team but put together a super-team is beyond me.

 

[robertocarlos]

@berzin
1 yes the same player
2 when you do growth hormone every muscle grows including the jaw.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

If Contador is stripped of his Tour, Schleck should refuse to accept the win. That's a lot to ask, I know, and I would never have expected Pereiro to do anything other than grab at the title of champion and cry about how Landis had wronged him and the sport, but if someone like LeMond can refuse to wear yellow after inheriting off the back of a broken Rolf Sorensen in 1991, then there's hope that someone might make a more principled but controversial decision not to accept the overall win as a result of anything other than events happening on the road (ie, don't accept being elevated to race win to replace a "dirty" champion when you yourself may very well have been competing on equal terms, actually).

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[robertocarlos]

I know quite a some young track and field runners that had almost perfect teeth until they became 23-29. That is here in the USA as my coach was also coach of a top high school team in Los Angeles, and we have met this athletes since their teens.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm with BroDeal on this.

Just throwing actually popular sports stars in front of the train that's coming after him. He knew he was picking the most tested sport to be doping in.

Perreiro is taking a stand on the side of the little man - cycling, against the big slave owning inudstrialist magnate - Football/ soccer, and its little brothers and cousins - Tennis, American sports.

 

[The Hitch]

So you believe everybody is doping?

Moncoutié does not win his races by crushing the opposition. He goes in the breakaway and proves the strongest in that. Doping may help characters, but it is not a lightswitch, you press it and it makes you better. Moncoutié chooses the breaks he is part of well (where he is the strongest climber) and doses his efforts well (not doing too much work) so that he has enough strength left to complete. He also always rides on the back of the péloton because he is not interested in the GC; this means he loses time in any splits and is no threat to any of the established GC men, so nobody chases him down when he attacks. It's a good little niche, and one which is entirely plausible and possible without doping.

Also, because of the testing, doping is less in cycling than it used to be. By that I don't necessarily mean fewer people are doing it - but I mean the same number of people are doing LESS of it. The days of Bjarne Riis speed on Hautacam are gone. Riders are still doping, but they can't get away with that kind of quantity of it anymore. Hence the difference between the clean riders and the dirty riders is more easily bridged by a good talent.

David Moncoutié is a rider that most people are willing to accept is clean. We have testimonies from his own team management, from dopers who were caught, and from other riders in the péloton. We have his own character, attitude and behaviour. And we have his palmarès.

And yet, you, who has not heard of Moncoutié until today, feel you can judge that you know more about him than the people who've raced with him, trained with him, managed him. Obviously they must have something to hide, right? Except that Gaumont voluntarily told of all of his teammates doping. Except Tombak and Moncoutié.

Might want to add that Moncoutie failed quite a few times such as Tour 13 and Jaen and I think 1 or 2 other Vuelta stages before he won that stage.

 

[GotDropped]

That's probably because most people are satisfied that Pereiro was involved with doping at least at some point in his career. He accepted that cycling has a problem, but argues that it is unfair cyclists receive different treatment in regards to other sportsmen.

I don't see why he's supposed to claim he's never doped, or defend cycling. He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiots sat around him, and pointing out that if a cyclist did what Zidane, Guardiola or Gurpegui did (and they're just the ones dumb enough to get caught) they may still be heroes to many... but their infractions wouldn't be forgotten footnotes in their careers that nobody cares about. He points out the reputation suffering, and the number of positives being higher, because of continuous testing (mentioning his son's embarrassment at the testers turning up at his house over and over again).

Those sports journalists don't care about drugs in football. They have no idea about the drugs testing or lack thereof, and if they do know they suppress that information, because "people don't care". The guy with the moustache counts Pereiro's examples of footballers who've tested positive as if they are the only ones, but Pereiro is well aware, and points out, that not testing positive does not = clean. He stopped short of implying himself or anything like that, which is why he's being accused of deflection or defensiveness. You've got to bear in mind, however, that he's on a chauvinist football haven, replete with the kind of guys who have no interest in hearing about anything other than how wonderful the Barcelona front line are. Trying to engage in fair, even-handed debate and being able to admit his own failings vs. those of people around him is not even an option.

I agree with you. But some people have said that they now respect him more because of this... but he is just ****ed that others can cheat, and get away with it more than cyclists can. So, until he says that he didn't cheat, that he has never taken drugs, that he is against all the cheaters that have cheating him out of his livelihood, it doesn't make a difference to me. I cannot give him more respect just for whinging about others getting away with it. He knows the truth, most of us can see the truth, it just makes him seem like more of a hypocrite.

 

[Le breton]

........., you are been very disrespectful.

yes, definitely.

 

[hrotha]

I agree with you. But some people have said that they now respect him more because of this... but he is just ****ed that others can cheat, and get away with it more than cyclists can. So, until he says that he didn't cheat, that he has never taken drugs, that he is against all the cheaters that have cheating him out of his livelihood, it doesn't make a difference to me. I cannot give him more respect just for whinging about others getting away with it. He knows the truth, most of us can see the truth, it just makes him seem like more of a hypocrite.

Why? This doesn't make him a hypocrite, since he isn't saying he or cycling in general are clean. The hypocrites are those who turn a blind eye on doping in other sports while making cheap jokes at cycling's expense, especially because they, as sports journalists, most likely know very well what's going on.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I agree with you. But some people have said that they now respect him more because of this... but he is just ****ed that others can cheat, and get away with it more than cyclists can. So, until he says that he didn't cheat, that he has never taken drugs, that he is against all the cheaters that have cheating him out of his livelihood, it doesn't make a difference to me. I cannot give him more respect just for whinging about others getting away with it. He knows the truth, most of us can see the truth, it just makes him seem like more of a hypocrite.

But whether Pereiro does or doesn't, or did or didn't, dope is irrelevant to the point he's making. Pereiro isn't being a hypocrite, because he's not saying that he didn't dope, or that cycling isn't bad. He even says that it is. He wants to be treated fairly. What's wrong with that?

He's taking aim at smug journalists who write the easy thing. Cycling = dope. Easy. He's taking aim at the mishandling of Operación Puerto - the selective releases of names from that didn't just annoy cycling bods, it annoyed Eufemiano Fuentes. He's not asking for protection. He's asking for parity.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why? This doesn't make him a hypocrite, since he isn't saying he or cycling in general are clean. The hypocrites are those who turn a blind eye on doping in other sports while making cheap jokes at cycling's expense, especially because they, as sports journalists, most likely know very well what's going on.

As with most things, the truth lies in the middle ground. Oscar walks the thin line saying all sports dope (agreed) while admitting to nothing himself. This does not however mean than the sports journalists (?) are not the bigger hypocrites for their position.

 

[Fourier]

He vented a lot of anger, I think it has less to do with rationalizing doping in cycling but more with putting the fight against doping into perspective.
I've had this conversation with a lot of football lovin' friends and I have never been able to even get my point across to them (talk about brainwashed fanboys)
Power to you Oscar!

 

[Berzin]

As with most things, the truth lies in the middle ground. Oscar walks the thin line saying all sports dope (agreed) while admitting to nothing himself. This does not however mean than the sports journalists (?) are not the bigger hypocrites for their position.

I don't understand the fanatical premise of confession here. Periero has an opinion, it's a valid one, and he stated it under the duress of the idiot next to him who wouldn't let him speak his mind in a cordial manner.

Let's have some nuance here. How are self-confessed cyclists treated? They are shunned worse than criminals in some instances. Why would he want to put himself and his family through all that just so that a bunch of internet yahoos can feel vindicated?

Why would he voluntarily face getting raked over the coals in court for years and years like Jan Ullrich? Let the guy live in peace. At the very least his comments were thought-provoking. But when the dialogue becomes stunted with cries for confession, the bigger point gets missed.

 

[hrotha]

By the way, I don't think it's been mentioned yet but the TV show where this happened, Punto Pelota, is mostly (99% of the time) about football. They only started talking about cycling because a steak was mentioned and someone made a joke about Contador, which Pereiro didn't like. He wasn't there to talk about cycling but about football.

I say this because it puts the whole deflecting thing into context.