Pro Rider reaction to Ricco news

[palmerq]

Being british, that is not actually the first thing that springs to my mind, and im assuming that is not what cav meant by it. All i would say is he needs to learn to shut up.

Being british it is the first thing that springs to my mind :S ehhh not that I think about things like that a lot..... oh oh

but i think you are trying a bit too hard to change what he said when you don't need to, it is hardly a terrible thing to say you hear far worse in work, in the street infact everywhere :S... it is just a joke nothing more

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The ***** system

A system that exists in most penitentiaries. *****es are weaker prisoners that belong to tougher prisoners. *****es must do whatever their master tells them to. In return, the *****'s master protects them from other prisoners.

it can mean a whole host of things. I think getting upset about sexual abuse is just one interpretation of the word. Being british, that is not actually the first thing that springs to my mind, and im assuming that is not what cav meant by it. All i would say is he needs to learn to shut up.

Yes he does.

The point is that someone is usually made into a prison ***** after they have been raped. That is the point and the method through which the weakness of a prisoner is demonstrated.

As I say, I doubt very much that Frodo was thinking along the lines of making cups of tea and much more along the lines of prison showers.

 

[lightclimber]

Funny how the CN 'interview' with Frodo, Aldag and Kelly fails to mention that 2 of the three are convicted dopers. One of whom nearly killed himself on EPO.
Aldag - a self confessed doper who continues to employ dopers like Zabel and work with a doper like Holm. And some how we are supposed to take his condemnation seriously???

EXACTLY what I thought when I saw Aldag getting interviewed for 'his take'!!

Aldag confessed to doping EPO for at least 5 years!

And as for Sean Kelly, what if he was actually suspended for two years after getting caught doping in 1984? - That would mean no stage wins and point classification in 1985/1986 Vuelta's a Espana, or 1986 Paris Roubaix or 1986 Milan SR.

What if Sean Kelly was suspended again after getting caught doping for a second time in 1988? No overall Vuelta a Espana in 1988 either then or Milan SR (1992) or LBL (1989) or Giro di Lombardia(1991).

His whole career was tainted by dope.

The sheer hypocracy is staggering...

 

[Francois the Postman]

Somehow I feel vindicated by CN's inclusion of Cav's comment of today. I am now the proud recipient of a warning from Francois the egg-on-his-face-man harking back to that fateful day when I suggested the proper punishment for his holy Lanceness

You are correct. I send you a gentle warning after you made a post in which you breached 3 forum rules. No ban, no points on the sheet, no nothing. A request to stop it.

Your mature response? Whining about it, dragging a private warning into a public thread, and derailing it, as it is about moderation, not about Cav (rule breach #4). "Poor you."

Seems you, like so many, are quick to talk about the heavy handed modding here, when you can't even deal with the gentlest of private "come on mate". Seems a gentle request to you still blows up in my face, and needs to derail a forum thread too.

Don't come whining when I can't be bothered to make my next request to you less gentle.

I am replying to you in public, in this thread, since you dragged here, and I have no time to clean it up, or deal with it differently.

That dealt with, I draw the line here for all now:

[TO ALL]

Forum moderation issues are to go into the About the Forum area. Next one missing this subtle distinction between reporting what Cav said, and forum moderation rules about what anyone can't say here, like advocating rape as a good thing, will be given some time to find your way there.

This thread is about what Cav said, how CN reported it, and if they should have challenged him on it.

If folk can't keep this thread on topic, it will be closed.

 

[Cloxxki]

Are we (again) coming to the conclusion that stunningly, Ricco is one of the good guys? He admitted guilt, did little to conserve omerta, and he's being puked out by pro sports. Ok, ok, I detested him before he was first caught already. Usually people I detest get caught. Would that mean I sense their ethics are offbalance, or would I just sense their stupidity, being a key factor for being caught?

 

[hrotha]

EXACTLY what I thought when I saw Aldag getting interviewed for 'his take'!!

Aldag confessed to doping EPO for at least 5 years!

And as for Sean Kelly, what if he was actually suspended for two years after getting caught doping in 1984? - That would mean no stage wins and point classification in 1985/1986 Vuelta's a Espana, or 1986 Paris Roubaix or 1986 Milan SR.

What if Sean Kelly was suspended again after getting caught doping for a second time in 1988? No overall Vuelta a Espana in 1988 either then or Milan SR (1992) or LBL (1989) or Giro di Lombardia(1991).

His whole career was tainted by dope.

The sheer hypocracy is staggering...

If we assumed cycling has changed for real and that Aldag is one of the good guys now, it wouldn't be necessarily hypocritical of him to criticize Riccò, because the circumstances of 2011 aren't the same as those of 1996. The problem is that we have pretty solid reasons to think that is not the case.

 

[Anonymous]

You are correct. I send you a gentle warning after you made a post in which you breached 3 forum rules. No ban, no points on the sheet, no nothing. A request to stop it.

Your mature response? Whining about it, dragging a private warning into a public thread, and derailing it, as it is about moderation, not about Cav (rule breach #4). "Poor you."

Seems you, like so many, are quick to talk about the heavy handed modding here, when you can't even deal with the gentlest of private "come on mate". Seems a gentle request to you still blows up in my face, and needs to derail a forum thread too.

Don't come whining when I can't be bothered to make my next request to you less gentle.

[TO ALL]

Forum moderation issues are to go into the About the Forum area. Next one missing this subtle distinction between reporting what Cav said, and forum moderation rules about what anyone can't say here, like advocating rape as a good thing, will be given some time to find your way there.

This thread is about what Cav said, how CN reported it, and if they should have challenged him on it.

If folk can't keep this thread on topic, it will be closed.

I think you need to reconcile the bolded section with the underlined section. I guess its okay for you to continue the debate in a thread because you are a moderator and then shut off any response to your characterization by suggesting that such things are only appropriate in "About the forum?"

Hypocrisy: look it up.

 

[Gregory]

The reason of this outrage against Ricco lies in the fact that he has been straining the fundamental rules of Omerta. In this way he is jeopardizing the well being of the pro-cycling world. His 'crime' was constituted by his repeated hints, implicit and explicit about the true usage of doping in the peloton. Ricco, after being caught for the first time, seemed to almost laughingly and lightheartedly confirm the suggestions about doping thrown at him by the journalists.
On the other hand, the 'right' behavior is such:
1. If you get caught, at best don't admit doping. It would be great if you don't negate the UCI tests as well. Instead try to find an explanation for this unhappy accident: Contador's meat, Tyler's twin, Gibo Simoni's sweets. What some people don't realize is the fact, that these guys are not coming with these idiotic explanations out of their own initiative: they are doing so, because omerta enforces it. As a result, they are respected by the other riders.
2. The second option is to refuse doping charge flatly, even when faced with overwhelming evidence and ultimately a ban. Refuse confessing doping even if you don't have explanation. After serving the ban, you will be welcomed.
3. Don't say anything at all during the whole procedure. No denial, no acceptation, nothing (like Ullrich). You will also be welcomed back.
4. or, you may admit to your own doping, but at the same time you must create impression that this is an isolated case, that you are a black sheep, that you feel extremely guilty for doing this terrible damage to the clean majority. The others will welcome you back.

Now what you cannot do: Speak the truth. Admit doping, but do so defiantly and arrogantly. Feel no guilt at all, since all the others are doing it as well.
Your road to pro-cycling is closed or you may face aggression from other riders (Kohl, Sinkewitz, Simeoni)

 

[thehog]

The reason of this outrage against Ricco lies in the fact that he has been straining the fundamental rules of Omerta. In this way he is jeopardizing the well being of the pro-cycling world. His 'crime' was constituted by his repeated hints, implicit and explicit about the true usage of doping in the peloton. Ricco, after being caught for the first time, seemed to almost laughingly and lightheartedly confirm the suggestions about doping thrown at him by the journalists.
On the other hand, the 'right' behavior is such:
1. If you get caught, at best don't admit doping. It would be great if you don't negate the UCI tests as well. Instead try to find an explanation for this unhappy accident: Contador's meat, Tyler's twin, Gibo Simoni's sweets. What some people don't realize is the fact, that these guys are not coming with these idiotic explanations out of their own initiative: they are doing so, because omerta enforces it. As a result, they are respected by the other riders.
2. The second option is to refuse doping charge flatly, even when faced with overwhelming evidence and ultimately a ban. Refuse confessing doping even if you don't have explanation. After serving the ban, you will be welcomed.
3. Don't say anything at all during the whole procedure. No denial, no acceptation, nothing (like Ullrich). You will also be welcomed back.
4. or, you may admit to your own doping, but at the same time you must create impression that this is an isolated case, that you are a black sheep, that you feel extremely guilty for doing this terrible damage to the clean majority. The others will welcome you back.

Now what you cannot do: Speak the truth. Admit doping, but do so defiantly and arrogantly. Feel no guilt at all, since all the others are doing it as well.
Your road to pro-cycling is closed or you may face aggression from other riders (Kohl, Sinkewitz, Simeoni)

Ricco had to dope alone. He had his sentece reduced after he sold in his dealers.

 

[Gregory]

Ricco had to dope alone. He had his sentece reduced after he sold in his dealers.

Then it's even worse for him

 

[Mambo95]

If we assumed cycling has changed for real and that Aldag is one of the good guys now, it wouldn't be necessarily hypocritical of him to criticize Riccò, because the circumstances of 2011 aren't the same as those of 1996. The problem is that we have pretty solid reasons to think that is not the case.

The way I see it, Aldag doped, admitted, got a second chance, reformed and moved on.

Ricco doped, admitted it, got a second chance, claimed to have reformed and threw it all away at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Fester]

All I will say, is that hypocrisy, is an unpleasant thing and if you are in need of victories and a bit of money to feed your ego, be pleasant about it and don't rub other people's noses in it.

As for people who "practice what they preach" they should preach (judge) less and practise more and in a humble manner, lending purity to their credence.

As for comments like that of Cavendish. He wouldn't want people to forget he, like Ricco, needs to feed his gigantic ego through success bike races?

As for Ricco, the poor fellow played the field as he saw it and lost. I am sure he could have served well as a drug free domestique, for a favoured one. shame his pride got the better of him!

People are frighteningly weak.

 

[Chuffy]

The way I see it, Aldag doped, admitted, got a second chance, reformed and moved on.

Ricco doped, admitted it, got a second chance, claimed to have reformed and threw it all away at the earliest opportunity.

Reasonable summary. I get the impression that for some in here it's a b+w case of 'once a doper always a doper' and that dopers, reformed or otherwise, should keep their mouths shut and refrain from commenting.

 

[70kmph]

M Cav.- "I really hope he becomes someone's beotch in prison..."

Sean Kelly- "Yeah, he's totally Crazy. If I had no rider at all I wouldn't hire him"

Lmao- Gold

 

[GoGarmin]

From Joe Papp's Twitter:


Very appropriate if you ask me.

Wow ... once again Joe Papp gets it. Said in 140 characters exactly what I've been thinking about this whole charade. Where was this indignation when Conti failed his test?

 

[joe_papp]

From my own experience.

Although I was never as talented a rider as Ricco, I've experienced the same abuse - people suggesting that an appropriate punishment for my doping and helping others to dope would be to be sexually abused in prison and raped by other male inmates.

Anyone who expresses that kind of evil, disturbed sentiment, claiming that another human being guilty of damaging their own body in order to ride a bike faster deserves in-turn to be further harmed by other humans is as bad or worse a character than the original villain. End of story.

As Thomas Frei said, I would rather invite into my house every doper who'd been caught and sanctioned before inviting a single one of the dopers who hadn't been caught but tried to pass themselves off as righteously-indignant victims by piling-on the latest schmuck like Ricco.

Riccardo Riccó IS the convenient villain who allows a peloton filled with dubious pro cyclists to manifest a mock sense of justice.

(Note: not every rider in the peloton is dubious.)

 

[Oldman]

Riccardo Riccó IS the convenient villain who allows a peloton filled with dubious pro cyclists to manifest a mock sense of justice.

(Note: not every rider in the peloton is dubious.)

Sorry to abbreviate your response but it does boil down to the last sentence for many of us. Everyone can sin but the unrepentant feigning piety is where the outrage comes from.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Are we (again) coming to the conclusion that stunningly, Ricco is one of the good guys? ...

OK, try this for size...

The enemy are the dopers. The enemy's enemy are those that want to expose the dopers. The enemy's enemy's enemy are the majority of the pro circuit who make a very nice living as things stand thank you very much and don't want the boat rocked or adverse attention drawn. Which makes Ricco the enemy's enemy's enemy's enemy. If our enemy's enemy is our friend, so is our enemy's enemy's enemy's enemy. Sort of.


Or not. Maybe.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The way I see it, Aldag doped, admitted, got a second chance, reformed and moved on.

Ricco doped, admitted it, got a second chance, claimed to have reformed and threw it all away at the earliest opportunity.

The way I see it, Aldag doped, retired from racing for a couple of years, admitted and carried on in Rudy Pevenage's old job .
Freiburg, Sinkewitz?

 

[kurtinsc]

Although I was never as talented a rider as Ricco, I've experienced the same abuse - people suggesting that an appropriate punishment for my doping and helping others to dope would be to be sexually abused in prison and raped by other male inmates.

Anyone who expresses that kind of evil, disturbed sentiment, claiming that another human being guilty of damaging their own body in order to ride a bike faster deserves in-turn to be further harmed by other humans is as bad or worse a character than the original villain. End of story.

As Thomas Frei said, I would rather invite into my house every doper who'd been caught and sanctioned before inviting a single one of the dopers who hadn't been caught but tried to pass themselves off as righteously-indignant victims by piling-on the latest schmuck like Ricco.

Riccardo Riccó IS the convenient villain who allows a peloton filled with dubious pro cyclists to manifest a mock sense of justice.

(Note: not every rider in the peloton is dubious.)

Joe... while not to be insulting... from what I've read you weren't exactly well liked by your fellow cyclists... in a way very similar to Ricco. I've no personal experience obviously, but it does not seem like many liked you in cycling aside from those you were providing for.

Do you think that maybe the level of vitriol aimed your way might be more related to that then anything else? People often act differently when someone they personally dislike is suffering a hardship as opposed to a stranger or someone they get along with.

You can say that makes them "worse"... but it's also human nature. If your actions on a personal relationship level **** off others... they're going to jump on you when you're down for almost any reason.

It's happening to Ricco... and it happened to you. That doesn't make them "worse then you"... that should make you reflect on why otherwise reasonable people reacted that way toward you. It should make you look inward.

It's not everyone else's fault.

 

[BotanyBay]

Riccardo Riccó IS the convenient villain who allows a peloton filled with dubious pro cyclists to manifest a mock sense of justice.

He's the kid at school that's down, vulnerable, and defenseless (at the moment)... and there's virtually no impending consequence for taking their turn at kicking him. They do it for a sense of belonging and in an attempt to scale the social ladder within the racing community.

The sheer number of pro's who have decided to join-in on this unfortunate attack is (in my view) a pretty good indicator of how bad things really are.

If Riccó had never been caught doping ...forget his cockiness (CAV), everyone would have just been tweeting their thoughts and prayers.

 

[BotanyBay]

It's not everyone else's fault.

So are you an apologist now? Do these people not own their actions?

I don't like HWMNBN very much, but if he were in the hospital tomorrow, I'd feel genuinely bad for the man. I really would.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Are we (again) coming to the conclusion that stunningly, Ricco is one of the good guys? He admitted guilt, did little to conserve omerta, and he's being puked out by pro sports. Ok, ok, I detested him before he was first caught already. Usually people I detest get caught. Would that mean I sense their ethics are offbalance, or would I just sense their stupidity, being a key factor for being caught?

Not yet. If he is banned for life gets a job at Burger King and starts telling all he knows about doping in cycling then he will be a good guy. A certain percentage of folks on here and in real life won't believe him of course because he is a doper and has no credibility. And so it goes.

 

[Mambo95]

The way I see it, Aldag doped, retired from racing for a couple of years, admitted and carried on in Rudy Pevenage's old job .
Freiburg, Sinkewitz?

Freiburg pre-dates Aldag's time as DS and Sinkewitz only used a testostrone gel, which is hardly a team program.

A lot of dodgy characters left T-Mobile as soon as Aldag and Stapleton came in.

 

[Cloxxki]

OK, try this for size...

The enemy are the dopers. The enemy's enemy are those that want to expose the dopers. The enemy's enemy's enemy are the majority of the pro circuit who make a very nice living as things stand thank you very much and don't want the boat rocked or adverse attention drawn. Which makes Ricco the enemy's enemy's enemy's enemy. If our enemy's enemy is our friend, so is our enemy's enemy's enemy's enemy. Sort of.


Or not. Maybe.

Sort of yes.

There are many, many dopers that are worse than Ricco, yet he's out there for us to take a **** over. I'm lining up to diss him just as well as any other guy. But really, he's rather biblically arrogant and stupid, whereas most riders of his performance level are just evil dopers, who manage to stay undetected.

So while there are others that are worse, let's use up all our today's p on Ricco, he had it coming longbefore he was first caught, and has been asking for more ever since. Yet, there are worse, hugely famous yet thusfar unnamed.