Jaan Kirsipuu gave a short interview for one Estonian radio station. He said that he believes that Lance Armstrong doped. Where there's smoke, there's fire, he said. But he also expressed doubt is there any point to rewrite TDF history. Overall he was quite neutral, did not show compassion nor contempt.
A short interview by the NOS. Gesink and Mollema http://nos.nl/video/410746-rabobankduo-over-armstrong.html
Gesink: "(..)we have to assume [the allegations] are true (...)". He softens up this claim by also questioning other things that happened in his time and he doesn't know enough about the case to have an educated opinion. (a 0 or a +)
Mollema in short: Bad news for the sport. It's a long time ago and they should leave it alone (I think a -)
Gesink: "(..)we have to assume [the allegations] are true (...)". He softens up this claim by also questioning other things that happened in his time and he doesn't know enough about the case to have an educated opinion. (a 0 or a +)
Mollema in short: Bad news for the sport. It's a long time ago and they should leave it alone (I think a -)
the big ring said:
Well, he's written a lot. That doesn't necessarily mean anything!!! Just take look around here
LugHugger said:Well, he's written a lot. That doesn't necessarily mean anything!!! Just take look around here
And from a quick glance, never by the same publisher (indication of sales perhaps) and often by universities, so yeah, not necessarily a good indicator after all.
I have a hunch he'd be worth listening to regardless though. Just like some of the people around here
- Aug 6, 2011
- 738
- 0
- 0
I want to put the Gesink and Mollema quotes in perspective, as I think that is important for their interpretation. I wrote down the full quotes below, in Dutch, with a rough translation (that's pretty difficult, so the translation is not perfect).
Full quote by Gesink (Dutch, see rough translation below):
"Af en toe hoor je dingen, en lees je dingen, over wat er gebeurd zou zijn, en ik ben daar niet goed genoeg van op de hoogte, denk ik, om daar echt een mening over te geven. Maar als het waar zou zijn en daar moeten we denk ik vanuit gaan, ja dan val je zeker van een voetstuk. Ik denk dat het voor veel wielrenners een periode is die afgesloten is en waarin heel veel dingen gebeurd zijn die niet goed waren en, ja kijk, naar andere namen van die tijd die ook met dezelfde problemen worstelden dat maakt wel dat het voor heel veel wielrenners die op dit moment actief zijn iets is waar ze niet echt de aandacht bij hebben, denk ik."
"Every now and then you hear things, you read things, about what supposedly has happened and I do not know enough of it, I think, to really give my opinion about it. But if it is true, and I think we should assume that, well, he certainly falls from grace*. I think that for a lot of cyclists, it's a period that has now been finished and in which a lot of things happened that were not right and, well, to see all the other names in that time that were struggling with the same kind of problems makes it for a lot currently active cyclists something that they don't really pay attention to, I think."
So, basically he's pretty critical about how Armstrong should be viewed, but also points to the fact that a lot of other cyclists from that era were also doing the wrong things. He also comments on the fact that he thinks that a lot of currently active cyclists don't want to spend their time paying attention to those days and just want to focus on the future.
The video fragment then continues with Mollema saying:
"Dit is, ja, dit hele nieuws weer is denk geen goede reclame voor de wielersport. Het beste was denk ik geweest, Ik denk dat iedereen in het wielrennen het daar wel over eens is, dat ze deze zaak maar laten rusten. Het is gewoon tien jaar geleden, nog wel langer geleden tot de datum waarvan zijn uitslagen geschrapt zijn. Ik vraag me af of het nog wel zin heeft om zolang terug te gaan".
Translation:
"I don't think this whole news story is good pr for cycling. I think it would have be best, I think everyone in cycling agrees with that, if they would let this case rest. It's now ten years ago (note: he's pressing that it's a long time ago), even longer till the date from which his records are deleted. I wonder if it is very fruitful to go back that far."
To me, this seems like a quote cut from a larger interview. I think they choose this part because it adds something to the Gesink quote, but that it doesn't represent his full opinion. Arguably, both he and Gesink want to place Armstrong's acts in the light of what everyone was doing in that period and think it's the best for cycling to focus on what's happening now.
*) Not entirely sure, the Dutch saying goes, literally, "he falls from his pedestal"
Full quote by Gesink (Dutch, see rough translation below):
"Af en toe hoor je dingen, en lees je dingen, over wat er gebeurd zou zijn, en ik ben daar niet goed genoeg van op de hoogte, denk ik, om daar echt een mening over te geven. Maar als het waar zou zijn en daar moeten we denk ik vanuit gaan, ja dan val je zeker van een voetstuk. Ik denk dat het voor veel wielrenners een periode is die afgesloten is en waarin heel veel dingen gebeurd zijn die niet goed waren en, ja kijk, naar andere namen van die tijd die ook met dezelfde problemen worstelden dat maakt wel dat het voor heel veel wielrenners die op dit moment actief zijn iets is waar ze niet echt de aandacht bij hebben, denk ik."
"Every now and then you hear things, you read things, about what supposedly has happened and I do not know enough of it, I think, to really give my opinion about it. But if it is true, and I think we should assume that, well, he certainly falls from grace*. I think that for a lot of cyclists, it's a period that has now been finished and in which a lot of things happened that were not right and, well, to see all the other names in that time that were struggling with the same kind of problems makes it for a lot currently active cyclists something that they don't really pay attention to, I think."
So, basically he's pretty critical about how Armstrong should be viewed, but also points to the fact that a lot of other cyclists from that era were also doing the wrong things. He also comments on the fact that he thinks that a lot of currently active cyclists don't want to spend their time paying attention to those days and just want to focus on the future.
The video fragment then continues with Mollema saying:
"Dit is, ja, dit hele nieuws weer is denk geen goede reclame voor de wielersport. Het beste was denk ik geweest, Ik denk dat iedereen in het wielrennen het daar wel over eens is, dat ze deze zaak maar laten rusten. Het is gewoon tien jaar geleden, nog wel langer geleden tot de datum waarvan zijn uitslagen geschrapt zijn. Ik vraag me af of het nog wel zin heeft om zolang terug te gaan".
Translation:
"I don't think this whole news story is good pr for cycling. I think it would have be best, I think everyone in cycling agrees with that, if they would let this case rest. It's now ten years ago (note: he's pressing that it's a long time ago), even longer till the date from which his records are deleted. I wonder if it is very fruitful to go back that far."
To me, this seems like a quote cut from a larger interview. I think they choose this part because it adds something to the Gesink quote, but that it doesn't represent his full opinion. Arguably, both he and Gesink want to place Armstrong's acts in the light of what everyone was doing in that period and think it's the best for cycling to focus on what's happening now.
*) Not entirely sure, the Dutch saying goes, literally, "he falls from his pedestal"
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
the big ring said:And from a quick glance, never by the same publisher (indication of sales perhaps) and often by universities, so yeah, not necessarily a good indicator after all.
I have a hunch he'd be worth listening to regardless though. Just like some of the people around here
THe thing is while the Armstrong example - authors with reputations who spout armstrongs crap, they have clearly been corrupted.
With this guy, he has been published, and what he says isnt popular in the slightest and isnt going to get him very far.
it is also in line with what we hear from tainted insiders like Landis, Conte, Kohl etc, and also **** Pound.
The Hitch said:
Sure. I have not looked too deeply, but liked what I read on wiki, and will definitely be following up, sounds very interesting.
- Jun 10, 2010
- 19,898
- 2,259
- 25,680
EZEQUIEL MOSQUERA
http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=54863
Key points, paraphrased:
- Lance had many supporters and detractors. I'm a supporter.
- I admire him not so much for his success or for the cancer stuff, but "because his athletic prowess, his personality, his special view of cycling, his team spirit [sic], in short, his seven Tours, managed to give cycling a global range it had never had before".
- Lance was "the embodiment of the 'American Pie' [sic]"
- There's an endemic disease in cycling: three or four [sic] of his loyal teammates aired his dirty laundry after the fact when things turned badly for them, no doubt they were in a tough spot to do so, but what I do know is that they all became famous and rich because Armstrong gave them the chance.
- Comrades stop being comrades when there's trouble, because they're still part of the circus or they have to be PC. Fortunately not everybody is like that, some people still have principles and I know quite a few of them.
Summary: snitches get stitches.
http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=54863
Key points, paraphrased:
- Lance had many supporters and detractors. I'm a supporter.
- I admire him not so much for his success or for the cancer stuff, but "because his athletic prowess, his personality, his special view of cycling, his team spirit [sic], in short, his seven Tours, managed to give cycling a global range it had never had before".
- Lance was "the embodiment of the 'American Pie' [sic]"
- There's an endemic disease in cycling: three or four [sic] of his loyal teammates aired his dirty laundry after the fact when things turned badly for them, no doubt they were in a tough spot to do so, but what I do know is that they all became famous and rich because Armstrong gave them the chance.
- Comrades stop being comrades when there's trouble, because they're still part of the circus or they have to be PC. Fortunately not everybody is like that, some people still have principles and I know quite a few of them.
Summary: snitches get stitches.
- Sep 2, 2011
- 17,544
- 13,772
- 28,180
joe_papp said:
A couple more quotes from the italian interview.
After saying they never trained together: "One thing leaves me puzzled. Doping with his team mates knowing he was doping, for a guy like Lance Armstrong, sounds totally absurd. Nobody knew anything about him. He was terrified he could test positive. He had a personal chef checking on everything he would ingest, even flasks. He feared there was a scheme against him. He didn't want to quit, but couldn't go on that way. That's why I was surprised he came back in 2009."
On Pantani and the consequences of his disqualification: "Marco was the symbol of italian cycling. Banning him meant anybody could be banned, while a couple of big names were overlooked in the past. From the on, anybody could be banned."
Even Armstrong? "Yeah. I'll go with a further example: in 2005 before the Tour started, the anti-doping french agency tested him. They made him sign a paper where he agreed that his blood and urine samples could be tested for the following eight years, even with new testing systems. And to date, nothing has come out."
- May 14, 2010
- 5,303
- 4
- 0
BroDeal said:
I just read the Abt article. (Great article, BTW.) From this it's clear he wasn't using EPO then.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opinion/rip-lance-time.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&src=twrhp
I got the stare the first time in 1994, just before the Tour de France began in Lille in northern France. Wearing the rainbow-striped jersey of the world road race champion, Armstrong admitted in an interview that he was puzzled.
“I’ve only experienced one Tour de France and it was very, very difficult,” he said. “I’m certain this year’s going to be as difficult, if not more. It seems to be much more difficult this year for some reason. There’s a lot of guys that go much faster this year. I’m just as fit and feel just as good as I did last year, but my strength within the peloton has sort of gone down. A lot of riders are stronger.”
His eyes hardened, but he wouldn’t amplify his statement. What he meant, as everybody now knows, was that the sport had entered the EPO (erythropoietin) doping era.
ChewbaccaD said:
This depth being the case you have no evidence of, correct? And, if I understand the rules, you will never see.
http://gerard.cc/2012/08/27/lets-focus-on-the-future/
Vroomen counts as pro-peleton doesn't he? Close enough
He makes a great point about how a lot of the reactions from the peleton are people talking about how this is about the past when it's really all about the future.
Also I didn't know one of the doctors slated to be banned is currently employed by Radio Shack.
Vroomen counts as pro-peleton doesn't he? Close enough
He makes a great point about how a lot of the reactions from the peleton are people talking about how this is about the past when it's really all about the future.
Also I didn't know one of the doctors slated to be banned is currently employed by Radio Shack.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 22K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram