Riis autobiography...

[Bilirubin]

makes quite a difference whether you're allowed back into the peloton with open arms (Riis) or not (Landis). Why would Riis be poo-ing where he eats?

I don't recognise the point. It was Landis who volunteered to throw his career away by taking his stand through the courts. He could have been back within two years. And I don't see how this effects the way he has chosen to reveal his history of volunteer doping.

 

[hrotha]

Whatever. Riis coming clean doesn't help cycling much, except by contributing to paint a pretty clear picture of doping in the 90s (but we already knew pretty much everything we needed to know about that). Landis coming clean on the other hand has a huge potential to help the sport. We'll see how that turns out though.

 

[Berzin]

You mean this comes as an epiphany to you: everyone doped in the '90s? I think most people didn't need Bjarne Riis to tell them that.

People don't know squat about what actually happened. To say "yes, they were all on dope" doesn't cover anything from a factual standpoint, it's just a lazy intellectual stance. Whatever details he can share with us about what he did, it will shed light.

He may not play the victim card but I feel like he does play the peer pressure card. He also doesn't assume full personal responsibility for his actions when he says "I was not guilty". Who else was guilty then?

What card would be OK for him to play? Like I said, I'd rather listen to what Riis says then the tired hypocritical puritanical posturing by internet posters for whom no type of scenario is good enough to confess. Some of you guys will always have a problem with however this information comes out. Me, I don't care. I just want to know.

Almost everyone speeds on the highway from time to time but when you do, you know it's against the law, and when you get caught, you know you're guilty.

I don't need trite comparisons to understand what I'm reading, nor do I need the two-bit moralizing to wash it down for it to make sense.

 

[scribe]

makes quite a difference whether you're allowed back into the peloton with open arms (Riis) or not (Landis). Why would Riis be poo-ing where he eats?

Why do any of them feel a need to cast stones at others?

Oh yeah. I almost forgot that whistle-blower million dollar prize.

 

[roundabout]

Will Conconi and Cecchini get author credits?

 

[shawnrohrbach]

In a sport full of people who have used substances for competition, it makes no sense to not promote a dialog about what happened/is happening. To punish them continues the pattern of denial and suspicion.

Seriously? The pattern of denial is perpetuated by liars who deny using because they are protecting lucrative sponsorships, period. Follow the money and you find the motivation to dope and lie.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Riis shows the right way on how to come clean.

#

Yeh, one in which, not only do you pay little in consequences your welcomed into " the fold" like a brother in arms.
The "everbody does it so I had no choice" answer makes me spit,,,yes you and every other XXXX that dopes has a choice.
Join the thieves that rob clean riders of the just careers or stay clean and do your best and if aint good enough to earn you a living then you aint good enough and find another job.

Its that simple.

 

[sniper]

Whatever. Riis coming clean doesn't help cycling much, except by contributing to paint a pretty clear picture of doping in the 90s (but we already knew pretty much everything we needed to know about that). Landis coming clean on the other hand has a huge potential to help the sport. We'll see how that turns out though.

My point exactly.
Riis may sound tough, but is merely ensuring his stay within the peloton, while pretending to advocate a clean sport. I mean, I can't blame him, but to say that his revelations exemplify his braveness... quite the opposite.
The guy has obviously been having his arm up various people's a%%es in order to get back into the peloton in the first place.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

My point exactly.
Riis may sound tough, but is merely ensuring his stay within the peloton, while pretending to advocate a clean sport. I mean, I can't blame him, but to say that his revelations exemplify his braveness... quite the opposite.
The guy has obviously been having his arm up various people's a%%es in order to get back into the peloton in the first place.

Hmmm... I'm sensing a bit of cross-contamination with this thread and the 'JV is spinelss' thread, although a lot more people seem to want to absolve JV of his misdeeds...

Anyone have a reason as to why?

 

[Altitude]

Is this a full autobiography? Or just a doping biography? If it's the former then I have no interest.

 

[La Pandera]

You mean this comes as an epiphany to you: everyone doped in the '90s? I think most people didn't need Bjarne Riis to tell them that.



He may not play the victim card but I feel like he does play the peer pressure card. He also doesn't assume full personal responsibility for his actions when he says "I was not guilty". Who else was guilty then?

Almost everyone speeds on the highway from time to time but when you do, you know it's against the law, and when you get caught, you know you're guilty.

Could this have been lost or misinterpreted in the translation? Maybe he's saying that he felt no guilt for doping. His admission that he doped is an admission of guilt/cheating.

 

[La Pandera]

My point exactly.
Riis may sound tough, but is merely ensuring his stay within the peloton, while pretending to advocate a clean sport. I mean, I can't blame him, but to say that his revelations exemplify his braveness... quite the opposite.
The guy has obviously been having his arm up various people's a%%es in order to get back into the peloton in the first place.

When was he ever out of the peloton post confession?

 

[TubularBills]

The timing is what I find most curious?

The Guy almost had his prime sponsor exit the sport.

A majority of Saxo Bank jumps ship.

He signs Contador, who immediately tests positive.

He's at the helm of a team in crisis and perhaps on the brink of collapse.

Sponsors are consistently bailing on the sport because it's mired in doping.

And he thinks this is the perfect time to release a tell all autobiography?

Maybe he's just independently wealthy and is just fed up?

Or, more likely, he's completely lost it...

 

[webvan]

And don't forget he was thinking about hiring Rasmussen...

Still hoping he'll shed some light on "old style doping" that made of him a super domestique and the "full package" doping that made him win the Tour, something he didn't have the talent for according to former leader Fignon (from his book).

 

[La Pandera]

The timing is what I find most curious?

The Guy almost had his prime sponsor exit the sport.

A majority of Saxo Bank jumps ship.

He signs Contador, who immediately tests positive.

He's at the helm of a team in crisis and perhaps on the brink of collapse.

Sponsors are consistently bailing on the sport because it's mired in doping.

And he thinks this is the perfect time to release a tell all autobiography?

Maybe he's just independently wealthy and is just fed up?

Or, more likely, he's completely lost it...

I'm guessing this has been in the works for awhile and with the Contador controversy looming maybe Riis feels he may need an alternative source of income in case the sponsors bail the way his Saxo riders did. So he feels the time is right with it being close to Christmas and all. Maybe he's seen CN's forum count and is hoping all of you will add it to your Christmas lists!

Plus, as many have already stated, he's not going to be saying anything that hasn't already been said over the past 6 years or so. It's just going to be told from a different perspective.

 

[hfer07]

I'm just going to state that I will read his book, so I can post a reasonable comment about it-and not just making premature & baseless arguments w/out having any knowledge of its content. I hope some of the folks here do the same, instead of just giving away opinions on "his personal record" but not on "his autobiography"-which is the topic of this thread, as far as I'm concerned.........

 

[NickBVK]

Would be an interesting read, he said it was "not a gossip book" and I wouldn't be interested in that.

Will check pricing to get it over to Aus

 

[Benotti69]

"I thought that I had to race on equal footing with the others, there was no way around it. These were the conditions of my racing years. No one enticed me, it was my own choice…How it was then, so I was - back then. People must either take it or leave it…I am proud of my life, I'm proud of what I have done."

these are not the words of someone who believes in clean racing.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Does it talk about what is Riis' attitude about doping now? You don't change attitudes like that in a heartbeat and he only admitted his cheating a few years ago.

If you are going to admit doping and how the sport was infested in it then start naming names of who you saw doping.

 

[Christian]

People don't know squat about what actually happened. To say "yes, they were all on dope" doesn't cover anything from a factual standpoint, it's just a lazy intellectual stance. Whatever details he can share with us about what he did, it will shed light.




What card would be OK for him to play? Like I said, I'd rather listen to what Riis says then the tired hypocritical puritanical posturing by internet posters for whom no type of scenario is good enough to confess. Some of you guys will always have a problem with however this information comes out. Me, I don't care. I just want to know.




I don't need trite comparisons to understand what I'm reading, nor do I need the two-bit moralizing to wash it down for it to make sense.

Lol you can use as many fancy terms as you want to seem smart, in the end it all cames down to:

Riis is guilty, everyone knows he's guilty, he says he didn't do anything wrong.

No one ever reveals anything we didn't already know or couldn't have guessed, unless you want to go down the Patrick Sinkewitz or Bernhard Kohl road.

I strongly assume what this book is all about is more €€€€€€€ for Riis (Sorry, don't have the dollar symbol on my keyboard)

Oh, and to answer your question: I liked Zabel's confession! But then again everyone loves Zabel

 

[ultimobici]

Since he apparently transitioned from "old school doping" (never turned a donkey into a champ to quote Hinault) to "full package doping" (that turned donkeys into champs according to Fignon) in the 90s, something Fignon says he didn't do (although people in the know didn't believe him and being one of the best paid cyclists he had access to all he wanted, he was just worn out) it could be interesting...if he doesn't sugarcoat is that is.

Who are these "people in the know"?

To say that Fignon at 30 was over the hill is disingenuous to say the least. Fignon was out of the top level for a couple of seasons but had returned to the top of the sport by 89. To come back after the 8 second defeat in that year's Tour must have been hard, but nevertheless he did. His 1991 Tour result in hindsight should really be viewed as a podium spot in light of the era.

So to reiterate, do you have a link or reference for these people?

 

[python]

i find it curious that no matter what a doping athletes said or how much he admitted meets a flood of indignation comments from the majority whilst the majority on this board said they’d dope themselves had they been in the same environment ?

are these the same people or we have a case a habitual hypocrisy ?

i take riis’ admissions for what they are - nothing new but a much better option than an insulting denial by a certain rider we all know had doped and cheated.

i also value some interesting details he confirms. if he chose not to tell-it-all, i don’t get too excited and even can understand some of his motives.

 

[webvan]

Who are these "people in the know"?

To say that Fignon at 30 was over the hill is disingenuous to say the least. Fignon was out of the top level for a couple of seasons but had returned to the top of the sport by 89. To come back after the 8 second defeat in that year's Tour must have been hard, but nevertheless he did. His 1991 Tour result in hindsight should really be viewed as a podium spot in light of the era.

So to reiterate, do you have a link or reference for these people?

Personal conversations with people who were around at the time, I'll say so much. Obviously I was not referring to 89 or 91 obivously, but to 92 and 93, I was struck by what Fignon had to say about these years in his book, did you read it? Not that it really matters at this point whether Figon (RIP) was on EPO at the time or not and chose to deny it in his book.

The point I was making is whether Riis will have anything so say about how the 80s doping made a decent helper out of him and the 90s doping made a champ out of him. The whole theory (as per Fignon, but also from Hinault and Lemond to some extent) is that until EPO appeared they were all taking "stuff" but it was more to stay fit than for average racers to beat the talented ones. The transition was probably pretty easy because they were used to taking stuff so EPO likely blended in easily and the rest is...history as they say.

 

[auscyclefan94]

i find it curious that no matter what a doping athletes said or how much he admitted meets a flood of indignation comments from the majority whilst the majority on this board said they’d dope themselves had they been in the same environment ?

are these the same people or we have a case a habitual hypocrisy ?

i take riis’ admissions for what they are - nothing new but a much better option than an insulting denial by a certain rider we all know had doped and cheated.
i also value some interesting details he confirms. if he chose not to tell-it-all, i don’t get too excited and even can understand some of his motives.

People have to be very careful when valuing past dopers opinions because you need to see their motives and what position they are in life before valuing their opinion. Riis is still very much involved with cycling and him saying that to get a result in a big race you had to dope is not an overly smart comment for current riders that are connected to him as it makes a mockery of his current team and past teams. I guess I need to have a deeper look at more of his comments on doping in his book. Would be an interesting read from an interesting person.

 

[ultimobici]

Personal conversations with people who were around at the time, I'll say so much. Obviously I was not referring to 89 or 91 obivously, but to 92 and 93, I was struck by what Fignon had to say about these years in his book, did you read it? Not that it really matters at this point whether Figon (RIP) was on EPO at the time or not and chose to deny it in his book.

The point I was making is whether Riis will have anything so say about how the 80s doping made a decent helper out of him and the 90s doping made a champ out of him. The whole theory (as per Fignon, but also from Hinault and Lemond to some extent) is that until EPO appeared they were all taking "stuff" but it was more to stay fit than for average racers to beat the talented ones. The transition was probably pretty easy because they were used to taking stuff so EPO likely blended in easily and the rest is...history as they say.

Read the book and what I got from it regarding Fignon's Italian trip was that he was spent then not in the usual "twilight of career" way but more as a result of his acrimonious divorce from Guimard that had played out through 91. Couple that with the full bore rise of EPO by 93 and one can see that his comments regarding donkeys & thoroughbreds make perfect sense and that it is highly unlikely that he even tried EPO.

It is interesting that many of the top riders of the mid to late 80's had careers that look like the brakes went on at the same point in time yet they were all at or below their peak age. Lemond (30), Fignon (30), Mottet (29), Delion (Retired 28) & Eric Boyer (Retired 30). All except Delion were top 5 finishers in the Tours and/or Giros of the pre EPO era. Delion was the Maillot Blanc winner of the 1990 Tour. Yet their careers all seem to dry up at the same point, 1991/2. Begs the question, why? I would contend that they were either clean or unprepared to go down the EPO route with all the attendant risks.