Reactions from the peloton

[hrotha]

Finally a reasonable reaction from a Spanish cyclist, from here:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...f=sports&_r=1&

"LeMond won support from Pedro Delgado, the 1988 Tour winner, who used his Twitter account to post a headline that said corruption was a bigger problem for cycling than drugs."

Oh how wrong you are. Delgado is a firm believer in the "this is all in the past" line. He's never spoken out against a doper, always against the rules and the enforcers. It just so happens he agrees with LeMond about the UCI being the biggest part of the problem, but his angle is completely different to LeMond's.

 

[cineteq]

Oh how wrong you are. Delgado is a firm believer in the "this is all in the past" line. He's never spoken out against a doper, always against the rules and the enforcers. It just so happens he agrees with LeMond about the UCI being the biggest part of the problem, but his angle is completely different to LeMond's.

As I suggested in another thread. Delgado is just piggybagging here. I wouldn't be surprised if others start doing the same, so they can deflect their own doping flaws.

 

[AussieEdge]

Meh I'd say Hysterical is exactly the right description (and is what is going wrong). It's hysterical because this is no surprise at all. Everyone in the sport and media knew most of it. And this is what causes the whole process to go bonkers. Everyone focusses on Lance and nobody is actually trying to fix the thing.

And the other comments... what do you want him to say? These colleagues and friends I race with, I never saw it as they are on different teams, but I know they are dirty?

Also, as a profesional, does he need to burn down the house? We can all howl, but the truth is that things have changed. I surely see huge issues, but to judge every diplomatic answer is really asking too much.

Answers like Evans and Froome are mature and clear. They are riders, not doping hunters/governing members/managers or judges.

Bingo!

Besides talk is cheap - it's what you do that counts not what you say

 

[hfer07]

Finally a reasonable reaction from a Spanish cyclist, from here:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...f=sports&_r=1&

"LeMond won support from Pedro Delgado, the 1988 Tour winner, who used his Twitter account to post a headline that said corruption was a bigger problem for cycling than drugs."

The same Pedro "Perico" Delgado who was in rage & disgust when Valverde was banned? I do know he's been outspoken against the UCI, but he's far from being an anti-doping crusader ....

 

[cineteq]

David Arroyo, déjà vu.
"Armstrong should have been judged in his era, and not now"
http://www.esciclismo.com/ampliada.asp?Id=23834

 

[No_Balls]

Niki Terpstra: Armstrong affair more in the media then in the peloton:

Generation of today has nothing to do with past" says Dutchman

Niki Terpstra, currently focussed on the 6-Daagse van Amsterdam, where he is partnered with his Omega Pharma - Quickstep teammate lljo Keisse, says the case against Lance Armstrong is concerned with actions that happened before his time.

Terpstra says that those implicated in USADA’s Reasoned Decision are from an era that has little to do with the current crop of young cyclists. While he’s witnessed a number of doping scandals since turning professional with Team Milram in 2007 he hopes it’s a theme that, at least in this instance, will be short-lived.

"We as cyclists are under scrutiny, but the generation of today has nothing to do with the past. Everyone asks me for an opinion but I have nothing to do with it. That is annoying. The whole affair with Armstrong lives in the media much more than in the peloton."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/terpstra-armstrong-affair-in-media-more-than-in-peloton

That is another way to say it.

 

[Ferminal]

I'd say that's true, doping isn't a problem for the peloton.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

Meh I'd say Hysterical is exactly the right description (and is what is going wrong). It's hysterical because this is no surprise at all. Everyone in the sport and media knew most of it. And this is what causes the whole process to go bonkers. Everyone focusses on Lance and nobody is actually trying to fix the thing.

And the other comments... what do you want him to say? These colleagues and friends I race with, I never saw it as they are on different teams, but I know they are dirty?

Also, as a profesional, does he need to burn down the house? We can all howl, but the truth is that things have changed. I surely see huge issues, but to judge every diplomatic answer is really asking too much.

Answers like Evans and Froome are mature and clear. They are riders, not doping hunters/governing members/managers or judges.

I agree that riders are "not doping hunters/governing members/managers or judges" but saying there is ‘‘a level playing field’’ only makes sense if:
a) everyone is clean (which he doesn't seem to say) or
b) everyone (who directly competes with him) is on roughly the same program (including himself)

So I would prefer him not to say things that proven dopers would say to justify their actions.

What I actually would prefer him (and everyone) to say is the honest truth (not diplomatic answers) but I understand why he would not.

 

[manafana]

some of pro's could do with readin the report and getting some brain cells, lance was a bully and a crook in cycling

 

[Turner29]

Right now, pro cycling reminds me of a Mafia funeral.

 

[BYOP88]

I guess the UCI* should just up the tests on those who say 'Lance is innocent'.

*When the UCI has new management, natch!

 

[AngusW]

Wiggins at the route presentation today:





http://www.sportinglife.com/other-s.../8191195/wiggins-cycling-angry-with-armstrong

Well, thanks, Bradley for your insight in this matter. As one of the ****s and ****ers who dared to question your miraculous transformation from grupetto fodder to Tour contender, I have to ask you: what happened to the Bradley Wiggins who railed against the Astana team, Rasmussen and Moreno for disgracing your sport during the 2007 Tour de France? That Bradley Wiggins would not have *****-footed around the character of Armstrong and compared him to Father Christmas. That Bradley Wiggins would not have minced words. That Bradley Wiggins would have labelled Armstrong a lying, cheating, doping ****y ****er.

Where is that Bradley Wiggins?

 

[Turner29]

Where is that Bradley Wiggins?

Someplace where random testing can't find him...

 

[observer]

McGee wrote an article in the age.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

he is against doping, claims never had to, and claims that saxo-tinkoff riders under his direction are all clean.

hope its all true.

 

[LongSprint]

McGee wrote an article in the age.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

he is against doping, claims never had to, and claims that saxo-tinkoff riders under his direction are all clean.

hope its all true.

Worth a read. Reasoned and articulate article.

 

[ElChingon]

McGee wrote an article in the age.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

he is against doping, claims never had to, and claims that saxo-tinkoff riders under his direction are all clean.

hope its all true.

Maybe one of the few stories I have a good feeling about. I still remember McGee's statements back in the day post Festina where he was fed up with people calling riders dopers to no end. He openly said he'd let anyone test him on any random day to prove he was not doping, mind you this was before all the actual UCI random vampire squads or location reporting. I have no idea if anyone actually took him up on it though but the offer was up anyway.

 

[Ferminal]

It was a good read.

The thing I don't get is how did he rationalise working for Riis and Contador? He can say they were great advocates of clean cycling but most of us doubt that, and I'm sure McGee understood the realities.

Not having a go, I know he had a job to do and that was it, it's just a bit unanswered for me.

 

[ElChingon]

It was a good read.

The thing I don't get is how did he rationalise working for Riis and Contador? He can say they were great advocates of clean cycling but most of us doubt that, and I'm sure McGee understood the realities.

Not having a go, I know he had a job to do and that was it, it's just a bit unanswered for me.

By the time of CSC I'm sure it was much more underground within the team and not something everyone cheered and jeered about on the team bus. I could see how CSC could have a two pronged approach to the team, with the Omerta keeping things under wraps unlike it was back in the day out in the open. This is how it (doping) has been maintained on teams, all on he low down now with as few contacts as possible, in my view.

 

[skidmark]

McGee wrote an article in the age.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

he is against doping, claims never had to, and claims that saxo-tinkoff riders under his direction are all clean.

hope its all true.

Huh. Compelling. It gives me hope that our constant suspicion is wrong.

 

[Northern rider]

By the time of CSC I'm sure it was much more underground within the team and not something everyone cheered and jeered about on the team bus. I could see how CSC could have a two pronged approach to the team, with the Omerta keeping things under wraps unlike it was back in the day out in the open. This is how it (doping) has been maintained on teams, all on he low down now with as few contacts as possible, in my view.

I agree with this, Contador probably working with Marti behind closed doors so to speak. It is a good article, well written and throughful. If I were Brad though, I'd be worried that I was going to get shafted again by dopers, on his own team, unbeknownst to him. Wonder how closely he'll manage Kreuziger ?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

By the time of CSC I'm sure it was much more underground within the team and not something everyone cheered and jeered about on the team bus. I could see how CSC could have a two pronged approach to the team, with the Omerta keeping things under wraps unlike it was back in the day out in the open. This is how it (doping) has been maintained on teams, all on he low down now with as few contacts as possible, in my view.

Agreed. Internal testing / external labs doing testing teaches / allows riders to stay under the radar. Clean ABP = perception of clean rider. All the team managers have to sell is "we look clean", and demand the team be clean, preferably via the media.

The riders themselves can go off on their own and do what they want, so long as they pass the ABP "clean" test.

When they don't

eg 1: Millar's 2007 November values and 2008 Tour values looking dodgy - the team manager can trot out something like, "David Millar does not experience plasma expansion because he is not a 'GT' rider, and does not recover, whereas CVV is and does". Even though JV forces Millar to ride the Giro, the Tour and the Vuelta, in 2009, and Millar wins the final TT at the Vuelta. Could provide Zabriskie blood values to corroborate. Waiting...

eg 2: Ryder Hesjedal's pre-Giro values are high, JV says everyone tested high, but provides no further proof, even though there are 8 more riders in that Giro for whom he has access to data.

eg 3: Ryder's last day blood values make no sense, with a 27% increase in retics, and JV starts with "hypoxia induced during the TT", and finishes with, "the morning sample was not stored properly". In the middle he tries to steer the conversation to subjective opinion by saying "If I thought the profile was dodgy I would just fire the rider, I wouldn't release the profile". He also threw in the Clenbutador argument, "retics don't enhance performance, so who cares if they are high?"

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I agree with this, Contador probably working with Marti behind closed doors so to speak. It is a good article, well written and throughful. If I were Brad though, I'd be worried that I was going to get shafted again by dopers, on his own team, unbeknownst to him. Wonder how closely he'll manage Kreuziger ?

Brad is leaving professional cycling, heading home to Australia to get involved with NSWIS.

 

[peloton]

Wonder how closely he'll manage Kreuziger ?

He's not working with Saxo Bank anymore, so that's not going to be a problem.

http://teamsaxobanktinkoffbank.com/ny_news.asp?n_id=3822

 

[sniper]

Agreed. Internal testing / external labs doing testing teaches / allows riders to stay under the radar. Clean ABP = perception of clean rider. All the team managers have to sell is "we look clean", and demand the team be clean, preferably via the media.

The riders themselves can go off on their own and do what they want, so long as they pass the ABP "clean" test.

When they don't

eg 1: Millar's 2007 November values and 2008 Tour values looking dodgy - the team manager can trot out something like, "David Millar does not experience plasma expansion because he is not a 'GT' rider, and does not recover, whereas CVV is and does". Even though JV forces Millar to ride the Giro, the Tour and the Vuelta, in 2009, and Millar wins the final TT at the Vuelta.

eg 2: Ryder Hesjedal's pre-Giro values are high, JV says everyone tested high, but provides no further proof, even though there are 8 more riders in that Giro for whom he has access to data.

eg 3: Ryder's last day blood values make no sense, with a 27% increase in retics, and JV starts with "hypoxia induced during the TT", and finishes with, "the morning sample was not stored properly". In the middle he tries to steer the conversation to subjective opinion by saying "If I thought the profile was dodgy I would just fire the rider, I wouldn't release the profile". He also threw in the Clenbutador argument, "retics don't enhance performance, so who cares if they are high?"

Strong post. Not many are able or willing to look through JV's data bending. Hell, the majority of clinic posters prefer to buy into it, if only it is to give themselves a shred of hope that cycling has indeed become 'so much cleaner now'. But in the end of the day, it's just sad old data bending.

the Clenbutador argument

spot on

 

[hrotha]

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that I bring to you Ángel Madrazo's reaction to the Armstrong case:
http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/v/20121026/deportes/ciclismo/medico-cree-recuperacion-20121026.html

Q: What do you think about the Armstrong case?
A: In my opinion, after 218 doping tests without a positive I don't have anything else to add. In my opinion those seven Tours are his. In the cycling world, and for the riders of my era, who grew up with him, with Beloki, or first with Indurain, the American is a role model.
Q: So you don't agree with the sanction he's facing?
A: No, I don't. I think it's unfair that he's being suspended without testing positive. For the cycling world he'll still be a champion. He revolutionized a significant part of this sport. He introduced high cadence as one of his advances. Going over 100 pedal strokes per minute was something he implemented first.