Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

[Gloin22]

he used be with Bjarnes says alot.

No, no it doesn't.

If we follow that logic, almost all the teams have someone a DS or a doctor etc. that used to dope or was inflicted in doping at the team hence we can say all the peleton is doping.. right ?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No, no it doesn't.

If we follow that logic, almost all the teams have someone a DS or a doctor etc. that used to dope or was inflicted in doping at the team hence we can say all the peleton is doping.. right ?

Welcome to the clinic. That's the basic premise of most poster's reluctance to accept that the peloton is now riding paniagua.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Welcome to the clinic. That's the basic premise of most poster's reluctance to accept that the peloton is now riding paniagua.

This. Everyone is dirty, but if you claim you are clean you'll get a much harder time than if you just keep quiet. Plus you'll also get an easier time if English isn't your first language and you ride with a bit of panache.

 

[Benotti69]

This. Everyone is dirty, but if you claim you are clean you'll get a much harder time than if you just keep quiet. Plus you'll also get an easier time if English isn't your first language and you ride with a bit of panache.

Only 2 teams out of 19 pro teams talk about clean cycling.

Can you point to where cycling cleaned up its act? Can you point out where and when all the dopers, enablers, doping doctors and others who profit hugely off the PEDs left the sport behind?

 

[del1962]

Only 2 teams out of 19 pro teams talk about clean cycling.

Can you point to where cycling cleaned up its act? Can you point out where and when all the dopers, enablers, doping doctors and others who profit hugely off the PEDs left the sport behind?

Really?

I don't know why the MPCC exists except to sue someone who never won the TDF

Why did Greenedge sack Matt and QS Levi?

 

[blackcat]

This. Everyone is dirty, but if you claim you are clean you'll get a much harder time than if you just keep quiet. Plus you'll also get an easier time if English isn't your first language and you ride with a bit of panache.

ah, we love panache Anthony Tan

 

[peloton]

Only 2 teams out of 19 pro teams talk about clean cycling.

Well, make that 3, from another clean team called OPQS

"Cycling is changing now," Holm said. "Everyone is a bit smarter and wiser, it's a different cycling now. The good old days...they are over and thank god for that."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/holm-on-sorensens-doping-admission-and-the-danish-coffee-club

Guess this makes me a cynic who doesn't believe in miracles....

 

[hrotha]

This. Everyone is dirty, but if you claim you are clean you'll get a much harder time than if you just keep quiet. Plus you'll also get an easier time if English isn't your first language and you ride with a bit of panache.

This post just goes to show you, and others like you, only read threads about Sky. Yeah, most people assume you're clean if you're Spanish. Righto.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/ritfiche.php?ritid=34624#first

Kloden must have had a lot of headwind that day, cycling is slowing down.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This post just goes to show you, and others like you, only read threads about Sky. Yeah, most people assume you're clean if you're Spanish. Righto.

This post goes to show you either didn't bother reading what I wrote or simply failed to understand it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This post goes to show you either didn't bother reading what I wrote or simply failed to understand it.

But where are the legions defending El Bisonte de la Pesa against the accusations of doping? Where is the back-and-forth? The conversation on him seems to go as far as "doping" "yea, probably", and then stops. Where are the guys trying to clear the name of a guy against whom nothing more than circumstantial evidence exists? Where are they?

There's no need for the accusers to dig further into the backstories because they aren't having to justify their accusations, and they aren't being fed by the media a story of his epic transformation due to a variety of convenient factors where the stars aligned just right several times in a row.

Sky get a harder time because, as we've discussed in the past, they've made a rod for their own backs. They shout the loudest about their cleanliness, transparency, and brilliance, so they get held to the highest standard. That's how the world works. Two politicians arrested on charges of corruption and bribery may be equal criminals, but if one of those has based his entire campaign on cleaning up corruption and bribery, he will get a harder time from the press for his hypocrisy.

Sky haven't actually been proven to do anything analogous to the criminal activity there, but they've sure been going around doing a fine impression of Banesto, US Postal and other train teams that, whilst feasibly one of the most realistic ways to win a race clean, is also a template that has been almost uniformly the product of doping teams in the past, and therefore creates similar suspicions in the audience. I can understand why they, if clean, get frustrated with accusations, but it does NOT help their cause one bit to then be attacking fans who have suspicions. Tiernan-Locke was much more self-aware on this front, because he did say that he recognised fans would have their suspicions about his rejuvenation but that he could only restate his conviction that he was doing this the right way. Would it have killed Sky to have had a prepared party line along those lines last year? I mean, they are supposed to be PR-savvy. Tiernan-Locke may not have convinced everybody who heard or read his words, but at least he didn't treat the fans like morons, or try to belittle them as ignorant or stupid.

And that's another thing. Fans come in a variety of strengths, but many of us are intelligent enough - even the conspiracy theorists and the most ardent loyal fans - to know when something looks awry. You're staunchly behind Sky but have acknowledged that at times they do make themselves look very suspicious - because despite what Bradley Wiggins might think, you're a fan of the sport, and you aren't stupid. The crass disrespect of the fans from the riders may have been an understandable response to the reaction they were getting, but winding up the fans and making them feel like they're being taken for mugs will rile them up and cause them to counterattack. Why did Armstrong get so much stick when Ullrich didn't? Because Armstrong destroyed people, hurt people, attacked non-believers and had an army of cohorts to join in. Ullrich said "if you can't put two and two together about what was going on, I can't help you". Which is not the most tactful way of admitting, but it suggested he respected the fans' intelligence enough that they would come to the (ridiculously obvious) correct conclusion. Regardless of which conclusion is correct, Sky's perpetual inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their stories and moments like Wiggins' outburst at the Tour are not respecting the fans' intelligence (are we supposed to have forgotten that Leinders worked 80 days now that he only worked 40? Are we supposed to have forgotten that Wiggins spent much of 2010 being all pally with Lance now that he's told us he suspected him in 2009?).

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

(are we supposed to have forgotten that Leinders worked 80 days now that he only worked 40?

I thought his contract was for 80 days but he got suspended after 40?

 

[thehog]

I thought his contract was for 80 days but he got suspended after 40?

Oh dear....

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oh dear....

Has 2009 just called to tell you that Contador is not 100% Guaranteed ™ to sign for JV?

 

[hrotha]

This post goes to show you either didn't bother reading what I wrote or simply failed to understand it.

You said speaking English makes you more suspicious here, when it's the contrary for many people.

The Clinic 12 don't see nationality as much of a factor, except in how it affects your PR.

 

[thehog]

Has 2009 just called to tell you that Contador is not 100% Guaranteed ™ to sign for JV?

No.

But 2007 just called and wants their doping doctor back

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

No.

But 2007 just called and wants their doping doctor back

You mean Ferrari because he is 100% Guaranteed ™ working with Wiggins, right?

 

[thehog]

You mean Ferrari because he is 100% Guaranteed ™ working with Wiggins, right?

Right on, Bro.

So back on topic. Leinders. 40 days, 80 days? Not even Brailsford appears to know.

You should know. You defend Sky. You need to know how many days Leinders was there.

If not. I worry that Leinders was up to no good.

Brailsford should know what his key staff was up to.

Period.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Right on, Bro.

So back on topic. Leinders. 40 days, 80 days? Not even Brailsford appears to know.

You should know. You defend Sky. You need to know how many days Leinders was there.

Come on Hoggy... Don't you like it when people call you on making up porky pies...?

I asked a simple question. Wasn't his contract for 80 days and he worked 40 of them.

 

[thehog]

Come on Hoggy... Don't you like it when people call you on making up porky pies...?

I asked a simple question. Wasn't his contract for 80 days and he worked 40 of them.

His contract was for 80 days per year. Period.

When it was made public that Leinders had a penchant for injecting EPO into the veins of cyclists Brailsford watered it down to 40, then 20.

It was 80. On contract. Probably more. Will never know because its deemed not important enough for John Q Public.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

His contract was for 80 days per year. Period.

When it was made public that Leinders had a penchant for injecting EPO into the veins of cyclists Brailsford watered it down to 40, then 20.

It was 80. On contract. Probably more. Will never know because its deemed not important enough for John Q Public.

So what I initially said was correct. Glad we agree on that.

 

[thehog]

So what I initially said was correct. Glad we agree on that.

No.

He worked 80.

Brailsford lied.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

No.

He worked 80.

Brailsford lied.

Ok, now we are getting some where. Have you got a link/source for that?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But Brailsford did say it in the press conference, something along the lines of (I'll have to paraphrase as I don't recall the exact quote), "what, we had a guy who worked for us 40 days, that means we must be doping?"

- even if Leinders only worked 40 of his 80 contracted days in 2012, which I consider to be quite unlikely given that his release was on October 9 (so when were the other 40 going to be exactly?), what about 2011? He must have worked a total of more than 40 days for Sky.
- Brailsford then went on to say only a few seconds later that people don't change, dopers are always dopers. Which then completely contradicts his argument from only a few seconds before, that just because Leinders may have doped people at Rabobank doesn't mean he doped people at Sky. Which would be a fair enough argument, except it would obviously beg the question - which has been asked on enough occasions without ever really getting a satisfactory answer - why was he chosen in the first place? Yea yea, I know, he came on recommendation, Steven de Jongh recommended him (another guy who has been jettisoned thanks to not being able to sign the Катюша waiver), so on. But it took Brailsford long enough to admit that there was 'reputational risk' in hiring the guy; for a company primed on media exposure and PR, it seems like a pretty poor choice, unless the only other candidates who had applied for the position were Michele Ferrari, Jesús Losa, Eufemiano Fuentes, and Marcos Maynar.

Hell, they might have got away with hiring Maynar, he's not so well known.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

But Brailsford did say it in the press conference, something along the lines of (I'll have to paraphrase as I don't recall the exact quote), "what, we had a guy who worked for us 40 days, that means we must be doping?"

- even if Leinders only worked 40 of his 80 contracted days in 2012, which I consider to be quite unlikely given that his release was on October 9 (so when were the other 40 going to be exactly?), what about 2011? He must have worked a total of more than 40 days for Sky.
- Brailsford then went on to say only a few seconds later that people don't change, dopers are always dopers. Which then completely contradicts his argument from only a few seconds before, that just because Leinders may have doped people at Rabobank doesn't mean he doped people at Sky. Which would be a fair enough argument, except it would obviously beg the question - which has been asked on enough occasions without ever really getting a satisfactory answer - why was he chosen in the first place? Yea yea, I know, he came on recommendation, Steven de Jongh recommended him (another guy who has been jettisoned thanks to not being able to sign the Катюша waiver), so on. But it took Brailsford long enough to admit that there was 'reputational risk' in hiring the guy; for a company primed on media exposure and PR, it seems like a pretty poor choice, unless the only other candidates who had applied for the position were Michele Ferrari, Jesús Losa, Eufemiano Fuentes, and Marcos Maynar.

Hell, they might have got away with hiring Maynar, he's not so well known.

It does depend if he was working part time or not. In was not that long ago that posters were saying he did not turn up to races which goes to prove that he must have been hired for doping. Then when it turned out he was at races it was another sign that he was clearly there only to dope the riders.

btw If you read my post I was asking the question not stating fact. I have no idea either way.