Sastre sings the omerta song

In response to questions from the press, the winner of the 2008 Tour considered that “there is too much speculation” every time there are news about potential doping cases amongst sportspeople, and that "is not good for anyone", as people should wait to hear "the final ruling given by the responsible organisations".

With regard to “Operación Galgo” (Operation Greyhound), Sastre said that “if someone is doing something strange, it's logical that they are judged and penalised because it doesn't benefit anyone" and he complained that these possible cases in other types of sports ultimately “affect cyclists more than they should". “There are always people interested in talking about things before or after a ruling has been given, but there is just too much speculation", he said.

Sastre added that he would like it "if there wasn't the choice to speak about this type of things" and that they were "set further apart from the sport", insisting on the fact that “there are organisations responsible for making decisions on these cases and that’s who should resolve them".
Link: www.carlossastre.com/sastre_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1264&Itemid=55

This is similar to the blather Evans spewed recently and was talked about here.

Evans trades saddle for fence on LA investigation

Poll: Who is lying? Evans or Landis?


The ideal for these guys would be that nobody ever gets caught and they do whatever they want. But the doping is so rampant and blatant that somebody has to "get caught" once in a while, just to make it look like they're doing something and tougher on doping than any other sport.

So what's the next best thing? Just what Sastre wants: Nobody says anything about doping except maybe when the "organization responsible" decide someone is in violation.

Now, try to imagine that you are Sastre and that, except for a few dopers, the peloton is mostly clean. Would you say something like this? To what end?

Does anyone else think the UCI is putting them up to this? Shall we have a poll guessing who will be next to make such a statement?
 
Ninety5rpm said:
Shall we have a poll guessing who will be next to make such a statement?
To be honest i dont know whose left. Even my beloved Samu came out in defense of Contador saying he knows Contador is clean, as have loads of people not even connected with the sport.

I am in agreement with you on this. Doping is still very rife in the peloton imo. I dont believe Sastre is clean, even though hes a nice guy ;)

I like Sastre, I like Samu too and i like Contador, but i believe they all dope and i dont believe scientifically anyone can compete with them in a 3 week gt without resorting to the same.
 
The Hitch said:
I am in agreement with you on this. Doping is still very rife in the peloton imo. I dont believe Sastre is clean, even though hes a nice guy ;)
I have a hard time believing that other people actually think that Sastre is clean. He has been at this game for a long long time now. Do people honestly think that he rode through the blood transfusion era, consistently placing in the top ten of GTs, and did it without doping?
 
BroDeal said:
I have a hard time believing that other people actually think that Sastre is clean. He has been at this game for a long long time now. Do people honestly think that he rode through the blood transfusion era, consistently placing in the top ten of GTs, and did it without doping?
Thats because both me and you take the view that doping is so strong, that a non doper cant compete with a doper.

But i do notice that most of the people here do not believe this.

A lot of posters here take the view that it is possible to dope and compete, that there are top guys out there who arent doping, and they will point to the lack of +ve tests and the fact that Moncoutie allegedly doesnt dope and he is finishing Vuelta mountain stages a minute behind the leaders.

And if someone is of the opinion that it is possible to compete without doping why wouldnt they trust Sastre. He is after all only a gt specialist, weak outside climbing and has no links to shady doctors or any of that.
 
Sastre seems to get started with a safe opinion, "too much speculation." I'd defend Sastre's comments if he stopped at "too much speculation" but he picked a generalized doping apologist position, essentially towing the Pat/Hein's party line. That's wrong.

I disagree with your characterization of Evans. I don't read Evans' comments as picking sides like Sastre's. I would argue Evans understands that very little of his career is under his control. With that understanding he refrains from choosing sides no matter his personal beliefs.
 
BroDeal said:
I have a hard time believing that other people actually think that Sastre is clean. He has been at this game for a long long time now. Do people honestly think that he rode through the blood transfusion era, consistently placing in the top ten of GTs, and did it without doping?
ONCE ONCE ONCE is enough.

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
ONCE ONCE ONCE is enough.

Dave.
Still, it's nothing short of miraculous that to this day Sastre (one time TdF winner, several times on GT podiums, countless times in the top 10, pro since 1998, previous teams include Banesto u23, ONCE and CSC) has no serious allegations against him.

We need more people to be open and honest about their careers, then we'll be able to tell if it was indeed impossible to do well while clean in the 00s. The (incomplete) data we have suggests it's likely no one at Sastre's level could have done it clean. We all would love to be wrong on this, probably, so we need more people to talk. We need them to name names. We know who was clean in Festina in 1998, and that's the kind of info the riders themselves probably know. So yeah. JV, you too.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
It appears that we've got a new theme in Omerta-speak: that of cycling as a red-headed stepchild, a poor abused victim of a sport that is unjustly and unfairly taking the brunt of doping news stories while other sports are not being treated as critically by the media.

Leaving aside the childishness of this theme ("but other kids are doing it too!"), and the pathetic whining of the victimization it fosters, and the lack of personal responsibility it encourages, it is simply a stupid argument that doesn't make any sense.

Quit simply, given that other sports such as Soccer and the NFL are much larger and make much more money they therefore have far more, better paid, and more talented journalists covering them. And it's simply not remotely plausible to assume that they're all getting paid off not to run doping stories on those sports. And furthermore, as an example last year alone the NFL busted their rookie of the year linebacker (Brian Cushing) and one of their best wide receivers (Dwayne Bowe) for PED's so why would they bust their bigger stars if they were covering up doping stories?

Where there is smoke there is fire and the constant smoke coming off the burning mound of feces that is pro cycling makes it clear that the problems are not going away without a full scale house cleaning of the UCI at minimum.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
I agree with what Carlos says.

Basically, he's saying that doping cases should be considered in the proper legal manner and riders shouldn't be condemned by gossip.

He then adds that these matters should made by the appointed authorities.

Now, I know there are some people who prefer trial by internet, where innuendo is fact, rather than due process, but neither me nor Carlos are amongst them.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Mambo95 said:
I agree with what Carlos says.

Basically, he's saying that doping cases should be considered in the proper legal manner and riders shouldn't be condemned by gossip.

He then adds that these matters should made by the appointed authorities.

Now, I know there are some people who prefer trial by internet, where innuendo is fact, rather than due process, but neither me nor Carlos are amongst them.
I agree, we should presume some sort of innocence until proven guilty. My problem is, the process takes too long. Somehow, someway, someone needs to come up with “due process” that doesn’t drag on for years and penalties that are exacted fairly and impartially. 2 years for some, less for others doesn’t make a lot of sense.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
BikeCentric said:
It appears that we've got a new theme in Omerta-speak: that of cycling as a red-headed stepchild, a poor abused victim of a sport that is unjustly and unfairly taking the brunt of doping news stories while other sports are not being treated as critically by the media.

Leaving aside the childishness of this theme ("but other kids are doing it too!"), and the pathetic whining of the victimization it fosters, and the lack of personal responsibility it encourages, it is simply a stupid argument that doesn't make any sense.

Quit simply, given that other sports such as Soccer and the NFL are much larger and make much more money they therefore have far more, better paid, and more talented journalists covering them. And it's simply not remotely plausible to assume that they're all getting paid off not to run doping stories on those sports. And furthermore, as an example last year alone the NFL busted their rookie of the year linebacker (Brian Cushing) and one of their best wide receivers (Dwayne Bowe) for PED's so why would they bust their bigger stars if they were covering up doping stories?

Where there is smoke there is fire and the constant smoke coming off the burning mound of feces that is pro cycling makes it clear that the problems are not going away without a full scale house cleaning of the UCI at minimum.
Look at this forum for an example.

This place is full of fans, exriders, exstaff, etc etc. Most of them call upon the sport to clean itself up. I have yet to see this sort of groundswell of the un-involved yelling out in the other pro sports.

They don't care? Probably. But it doesn't really matter. Cycling is the odd man out in regards to those other sports mentioned. There is no other sport that is so dependent upon systemic fitness (above other sport-related skills) than road cycling. XC skiing is almost there, but the important comps don't run over 4 hrs like any classic does. Throw the GTs in there and it's even more unique.

The issue is that with the popularity of the sport growing outside of Europe, more people have come to understand what it takes. That makes it more obvious that the top guys are cranked. After that, the fans want it to be more of an equitable contest (as it should be - it's sport), and they can see and understand what's going on, and start crying out against it.

I don't see it as the sport being dirtier than others, I see it as the fans of cycling wanting it to be clean. Who cares if a 200kilo guy in pads is doping? That's sort of self-evident. That skinny guy on a bike, doing what I do every weekend? 'That should be smartened up', that sort of idea.

Getting the media wh*res onside certainly wouldn't hurt. But who wants to shoot themself in the foot?
 
I believe that at Sastre has doped. I kind of made my own conclusions of Sastre based on two things:

1- Basically the same reason that Brodeal states. He rode during the blood doping and EPO era and still beat some of the known dopers. Besides he rode for Manolo Saiz and Bjarne Riis. That's too much "Doping by association" for me.

2- In 2008 during his last week he had an increase in power compared to the first two weeks. I did my own calculations and with some of the comments made on the Scientist of the Sports I made my own conclusions.

As for Moncoutié I don't think he is competing for top GC positions so I don't think that he can be compared the same as with Sastre. Ha loses time consistently on flat stages. He takes advantages of breakaways also. There are also versions of riders and other people on his team that he is riding clean. This came out in the Cofidis investigation. I think there is more to defend Moncoutié than to defend Sastre. At least the are facts.
 
May 17, 2010
43
0
0
Riis is and has been a dirty mofo. Sastre's results post CSC have been, shall we say, a bit less stellar. A different program, perhaps?
 
Escarabajo said:
I believe that at Sastre has doped. I kind of made my own conclusions of Sastre based on two things:

1- Basically the same reason that Brodeal states. He rode during the blood doping and EPO era and still beat some of the known dopers. Besides he rode for Manolo Saiz and Bjarne Riis. That's too much "Doping by association" for me.

2- In 2008 during his last week he had an increase in power compared to the first two weeks. I did my own calculations and with some of the comments made on the Scientist of the Sports I made my own conclusions.

As for Moncoutié I don't think he is competing for top GC positions so I don't think that he can be compared the same as with Sastre. Ha loses time consistently on flat stages. He takes advantages of breakaways also. There are also versions of riders and other people on his team that he is riding clean. This came out in the Cofidis investigation. I think there is more to defend Moncoutié than to defend Sastre. At least the are facts.
So what are we supposed to assume ? That only riders competing for the GC are on drugs or only riders that win ? Maybe there is also an argument for Sastre being more talented, more ambitious, having more will and more talent than riders like Moncoutie. I don't see Sastre's and Evan's comments as being any more than guarded responses to something they have been probably asked about for years. It is not up to them to judge Contador or anyone else without having all of the facts at their disposal and I am sure that this is a situation they have lived through many times before. Just because they refuse to play games with the media does not mean they themselves are guilty of the same crime. Is this what it has come to. If you refuse to admit you are a doper, have doped or won't name someone who has. We presume that person must be a doper themselves ? It's a strange world.
 
movingtarget said:
So what are we supposed to assume ? That only riders competing for the GC are on drugs or only riders that win ? Maybe there is also an argument for Sastre being more talented, more ambitious, having more will and more talent than riders like Moncoutie. I don't see Sastre's and Evan's comments as being any more than guarded responses to something they have been probably asked about for years. It is not up to them to judge Contador or anyone else without having all of the facts at their disposal and I am sure that this is a situation they have lived through many times before. Just because they refuse to play games with the media does not mean they themselves are guilty of the same crime. Is this what it has come to. If you refuse to admit you are a doper, have doped or won't name someone who has. We presume that person must be a doper themselves ? It's a strange world.
We assume they must be a doper because the abi
 
movingtarget said:
So what are we supposed to assume ? That only riders competing for the GC are on drugs or only riders that win ? Maybe there is also an argument for Sastre being more talented, more ambitious, having more will and more talent than riders like Moncoutie. I don't see Sastre's and Evan's comments as being any more than guarded responses to something they have been probably asked about for years. It is not up to them to judge Contador or anyone else without having all of the facts at their disposal and I am sure that this is a situation they have lived through many times before. Just because they refuse to play games with the media does not mean they themselves are guilty of the same crime. Is this what it has come to. If you refuse to admit you are a doper, have doped or won't name someone who has. We presume that person must be a doper themselves ? It's a strange world.
We assume they must be a doper because we believe that a non doper can not beat a doper. Its all science in the end, and from what ive seen the boost from epo on its own (before you even consider all the other stuff) is huge.

I dont see how someone can be so so so superior to everybody else that they can compete and beat several several top quality gc riders who turned out to be dopers consistently over such a long period.
 
movingtarget said:
So what are we supposed to assume ? That only riders competing for the GC are on drugs or only riders that win ? Maybe there is also an argument for Sastre being more talented, more ambitious, having more will and more talent than riders like Moncoutie....
Maybe another rider, but not Sastre. So far I am not convinced that can be done. Maybe the day that a rider comes out and publish his power data and blood data before, during and after a GT I can be convinced better. Based on the raids, information by other riders, and statistical data on power numbers I am not convinced that a clean rider can beat dopers.

Remember it is not my fault; it is them, the riders, who made me skeptical.
 
Mambo95 said:
I agree with what Carlos says.

Basically, he's saying that doping cases should be considered in the proper legal manner and riders shouldn't be condemned by gossip.

He then adds that these matters should made by the appointed authorities.

Now, I know there are some people who prefer trial by internet, where innuendo is fact, rather than due process, but neither me nor Carlos are amongst them.
+1
That's my interpretation as well. What is with this "burn them all at the stake" attitude whenever any pro makes a dope related comment?:confused:
 
Jun 4, 2010
85
0
0
Angliru said:
+1
That's my interpretation as well. What is with this "burn them all at the stake" attitude whenever any pro makes a dope related comment?:confused:
+2.

A (non-corrupt) process is necessary. Before someone is found guilty (or not guilty) they have to be considered to be not guilty.

When they are found guilty then appropriate action has to be made.

No story here.
 
I honestly don't find a clear indication of him "singing the Omerta song"-- he's simply expressing his discomfort of the entire media when a doping case emerges & hasn't been ruled out properly by UCI/WADA. the reality is that if the governing body and its rules were enforced the correct way- we wouldn't have to spend time trashing people out for matters related to doping.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY