Two-time Paris-Roubaix winner couldn't have hit the bull's eye more dead centre

[Echoes]

Marc Madiot says what matters is to elucidate Puerto and Padova affair and not the Pharmstrong case, which is ... trivial !

http://www.velo-club.net/article?sid=69066

L’affaire Armstrong est presque anecdotique. On se fout des sanctions et des répercussions que cela va avoir. Ce qu’il faut, c’est aller au bout des affaires en cours et pour moi, l’affaire Puerto qui n’a toujours pas été élucidée et l’affaire de Padoue qui est actuellement sur le point d’être révélée sont bien plus importantes. Tant qu’on ne règlera pas cela, on n’aura beau faire ce que l’on veut, cela recommencera dans 5 voire 10 ans

L’intérêt dans tout cela, c’est ce que l’on va faire par la suite, on doit renouveler notre sport, et ça passe par le fait de régler et aller au bout de ces affaires importantes

The Armstrong affair is almost trivial. We don't give a damn abouut the sanctions and the consequences it will have. What matters is to get to the bottom of the affairs in progress and for me, the Puerto affair which is not yet cleared up and the Padova affair which being revealed are way more important. So long as this is not settled, whatever you'll do, it'll start again in 5 or 10 years.


This is for you, Tourdefrancetards, who've started hundreds of threads on one and the same past rider whose doping had been proved, 7 years ago, by 6 positive tests, pretending to hate him while all you were doing was consolidating his fame and in the meantime, hundreds of dopers were stealing wins on other races than Bore de France in global indifference. I hope that now that the case is finally revealed, this cinema is now finally over and you'll be concerned for dopers on other races.

One can also wonder why if Pharmstrong is stripped off his Bore de France wins, Hincapie is still the winner of Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, and the Plouay GP (though organised by ASO). This whole case seems to be all in Bore de France's glory?

 

[babastooey]

One can also wonder why if Pharmstrong is stripped off his Bore de France wins, Hincapie is still the winner of Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, and the Plouay GP (though organised by ASO). This whole case seems to be all in Bore de France's glory?

USADA has had a lot of announcements lately, so sometimes it is hard for me to keep track, but I think they announced the sanctions to Lance and Johan and the doctors first? And then a few weeks later they announced the sanctions to the other guys involved in the case.

The UCI just accepted the Armstrong sanctions, which caused the ASO to proceed with what they did. Meanwhile, Johan said he was going to fight it, so nothing so far on him.

Meanwhile, the sanctions on the other guys (including Hincapie) were accepted, so the UCI should be processing those soon, and then I am sure the ASO will follow suit. In the world of technology I don't know why this can't all happen faster, but don't worry, it will happen eventually.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Why is one still wondering about the trivial sanctions related to the trivial Armstrong investigation?

 

[Oldman]

Marc Madiot says what matters is to elucidate Puerto and Padova affair and not the Pharmstrong case, which is ... trivial !

http://www.velo-club.net/article?sid=69066



The Armstrong affair is almost trivial. We don't give a damn abouut the sanctions and the consequences it will have. What matters is to get to the bottom of the affairs in progress and for me, the Puerto affair which is not yet cleared up and the Padova affair which being revealed are way more important. So long as this is not settled, whatever you'll do, it'll start again in 5 or 10 years.


This is for you, Tourdefrancetards, who've started hundreds of threads on one and the same past rider whose doping had been proved, 7 years ago, by 6 positive tests, pretending to hate him while all you were doing was consolidating his fame and in the meantime, hundreds of dopers were stealing wins on other races than Bore de France in global indifference. I hope that now that the case is finally revealed, this cinema is now finally over and you'll be concerned for dopers on other races.

One can also wonder why if Pharmstrong is stripped off his Bore de France wins, Hincapie is still the winner of Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, and the Plouay GP (though organised by ASO). This whole case seems to be all in Bore de France's glory?

Not so fast Marc and stooges. His protest comes a little to early...Remember whose program he rode for when he won Paris Roubaix?
Thom Weisel/Montgomery Subaru. Of course he wants you to look the other way. Ask me how he used to "train" with the team in Napa.

 

[ultimobici]

in 85 or 91? Guimard the first time and Roussel in 91. Subaru came after the disaster at Telekom in 1992, having nothing to do with doping. He was the real deal in any case. Armstrong, less so.

But if youre going to judge the man's words, at least have the decency to use a proper translation. He is not saying the Armstrong affair is trivial per se. One could use the word incidental just as well. The second paragraph is much more illuminating.

The interest in all this is what we will do next, we must renew our sport, and it is through the set and go after these important matters

Not a great translation (thanks Google) but it hits the mark nonetheless.

 

[Maxiton]

Not so fast Marc and stooges. His protest comes a little to early...Remember whose program he rode for when he won Paris Roubaix?
Thom Weisel/Montgomery Subaru. Of course he wants you to look the other way. Ask me how he used to "train" with the team in Napa.

How did he used to "train" with the team in Napa?

 

[luckyboy]

Not so fast Marc and stooges. His protest comes a little to early...Remember whose program he rode for when he won Paris Roubaix?
Thom Weisel/Montgomery Subaru. Of course he wants you to look the other way. Ask me how he used to "train" with the team in Napa.

Well, I don't know how much stock we can put in what else you have to say on the matter because he rode for RMO for the last of his Roubaix victories, 2 years before joining Subaru-Montgomery for one season.

The only results I can find for Madiot in 93 are two crits and a race called Bordeaux-Cauderan. He rode Milano-Sanremo, broke his coccyx in Driedaagse van De Panne, missed Roubaix and the team weren't invited to the Tour.

The following year he got no results on an unsuccessful teamcalled Catavana-A.S. Corbeil (a DS was Antoine Vayer) alongside his brother and Sean Kelly before retiring.

 

[Echoes]

.
But if youre going to judge the man's words, at least have the decency to use a proper translation. He is not saying the Armstrong affair is trivial per se.

Is this a response to me?

French is my mother tongue and the translation for 'anecdotique' is definitely 'trivial' (confirmed by my Robert & Collins)

Sorry for missing the second paragraph, I was a bit in a hurry this morning.

However the fact that my thread has been downgraded to the bottom of page 2 in less than a half day while there are again dozens of Pharmstrong threads on page 1 is proof of CN collective madness.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I will say it sounds like Madiot has his heart in the right place.

It sounds like he understands the UCI's abuse of focusing on the rider alone just keeps the doping culture alive and well and gives the UCI a powerful lever to get the rest of Elite cycling's actors to cooperate.

As for the Madiot/Wiesel connection, we know Wiesel is no stranger to coordinated doping. I'd like to hear more about the Madiot/Wiesel connection.

 

[Oldman]

I will say it sounds like Madiot has his heart in the right place.

It sounds like he understands the UCI's abuse of focusing on the rider alone just keeps the doping culture alive and well and gives the UCI a powerful lever to get the rest of Elite cycling's actors to cooperate.

As for the Madiot/Wiesel connection, we know Wiesel is no stranger to coordinated doping. I'd like to hear more about the Madiot/Wiesel connection.

I'm glad folks were quick enough to catch the accurate Paris-Roubaix team links and assume Marc competed clean.
That's why Weisel hired him? No.
MS was spring training in Napa the same time as myself and several teammates; familiar with Americans on MS's squad. They complained to us that Madiot and his brother brought their own soinguer and would ride the hills in huge gears; but would not allow the US boys to participate. The strong implication from team management is that Madiot was training "more professionally" and they should pay attention. The emphasis was one of the early indications that US riders should include all measures in their program or move on. If Weisel's implication was in total error then Madiot is owed an apology by his former teammates.

 

[Echoes]

Bumping my thread again, which in the span of two days was already rejected to page 5 (unbelievable).

I'm interested in this Madiot/Subaru discussion but I don't really understand. I don't really know Wiesel but I'm sure that in the past, many riders transferred to other teams from other countries brought their own soigneurs. There's nothing special about it.

I think Voet said that doping in RMO was nothing compared to what he will see with Festina.

By the way normally Madiot haters are usually quick to remind us of his attitude towards Bassons, which is true but you don't assess a guy just for that.

It sounds like he understands the UCI's abuse of focusing on the rider alone just keeps the doping culture alive and well and gives the UCI a powerful lever to get the rest of Elite cycling's actors to cooperate.

Glad to read this.

 

[zigmeister]

Why is one still wondering about the trivial sanctions related to the trivial Armstrong investigation?

I've been writing this the entire time.

Hypcritical, unjust, nonsensical, and any other adjective you can come up with to describe how if you are going to sanction a guy who never admitted or tested positive and take away basically all of his wins, then why aren't you taking all of the riders results away that have admitted to it?

OH wait, because they gave you info on the big fish, which you said really isn't the reason for the entire process to begin with. It was all for "clean athletes" blah blah blah.

If this process is really all for clean athletes past/future, then start taking all of those victories away from every single rider who admitted and was caught doping flat out.

Then I will take USADA, UCI and USA Cycling serious.

 

[MarkvW]

Bumping my thread again, which in the span of two days was already rejected to page 5 (unbelievable).

I'm interested in this Madiot/Subaru discussion but I don't really understand. I don't really know Wiesel but I'm sure that in the past, many riders transferred to other teams from other countries brought their own soigneurs. There's nothing special about it.

I think Voet said that doping in RMO was nothing compared to what he will see with Festina.

By the way normally Madiot haters are usually quick to remind us of his attitude towards Bassons, which is true but you don't assess a guy just for that.



Glad to read this.

The unraveling of the USPS conspiracy isn't trivial. The fallout is only just beginning.
Festina-->USPS/Puerto-->Padua indicate that organized team doping is--and remains--an intrinsic part of pro-cycling.

The scandals are not separate issues that can be segregated and addressed piecemeal. The ongoing highly organized doping conspiracies add up to one HUGE problem, and these scandals are just symptoms of that problem.

 

[Benotti69]

I've been writing this the entire time.

Hypcritical, unjust, nonsensical, and any other adjective you can come up with to describe how if you are going to sanction a guy who never admitted or tested positive and take away basically all of his wins, then why aren't you taking all of the riders results away that have admitted to it?

OH wait, because they gave you info on the big fish, which you said really isn't the reason for the entire process to begin with. It was all for "clean athletes" blah blah blah.

If this process is really all for clean athletes past/future, then start taking all of those victories away from every single rider who admitted and was caught doping flat out.

Then I will take USADA, UCI and USA Cycling serious.

Why did you take Wonderboy serious?

 

[Benotti69]

Bumping my thread again, which in the span of two days was already rejected to page 5 (unbelievable).

I'm interested in this Madiot/Subaru discussion but I don't really understand. I don't really know Wiesel but I'm sure that in the past, many riders transferred to other teams from other countries brought their own soigneurs. There's nothing special about it.

I think Voet said that doping in RMO was nothing compared to what he will see with Festina.

By the way normally Madiot haters are usually quick to remind us of his attitude towards Bassons, which is true but you don't assess a guy just for that.

Glad to read this.

Remind us of Madiot's attitude towards Bassons?

I too would like to know Madiots connection to Wesiel/Subaru.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm interested in this Madiot/Subaru discussion but I don't really understand. I don't really know Wiesel...

Thom got started apparently because of a skiing injury and then got bit by the cycling bug. Of course, he couldn't just ride clean, he hires Eddie B. as a "coach" then gets some Master's title out of it before starting his own teams with doping programs.

Dopers seem to follow Wiesel around like dog excrement on your shoe.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/High-Rollers.html?page=2

All of the athletes in that article turned out to be dopers.

The abreviated story, as I understand it, is that through a culmination of mis-managment Thom Wiesel bought the U.S. federation in a not-entirely-legal way and paid off Les Earnest who recognized what Thom was trying as illegal.

This is essential reading to get an idea of exactly how bad things have been at USA Cycling: http://www.sandcreeksports.com/documents/usa_cyclings_history_of_crooked_elections.pdf

 

[rickshaw]

Using the real world drug culture as analogy

In the "real world" we usually see news about the junkies and small time peddlers, the ones who die on the street or lure virgins into a life of crime. But we all know the real "story" is the international drug cartels, or terrorist groups who sell narcotics to buy armaments, etc.

In cycling LA has been a high profile minor league pusher-junkie in a neighborhood well known for a high population of drug users. He also supplies some muscle for enforcement of the code. What is the "real story" here? Festina, Human Plasma, Frieberg University? Puerto? Greyhound? remember that recent event? Ferrari and the Padova gang? Sure looks like it.

The UCI looks like the dirty cop in the hood, ready to protect his boys from the law as long as they pay, AND they don't upset the apple cart buy "hurting cycling."

 

[jamiephillips]

Didn't Madiot describe Kimmage's A Rough Ride as "the usual rant of a whiner who was never any good" or something along those lines??

 

[TrackCynic]

Weisel's spectre is still around. Just look at the highest profile masters and junior team in NorCal. http://www.teamspecializedracing.com/index.php?page=masters-team

 

[Echoes]

The unraveling of the USPS conspiracy isn't trivial. The fallout is only just beginning.
Festina-->USPS/Puerto-->Padua indicate that organized team doping is--and remains--an intrinsic part of pro-cycling.

I would say it's trivial because the evidence were there a long time ago.

L.A. tested positive 6 times in 1999, revealed by L'Équipe back in 2005. Of course, the testimonies might be interesting but they're all used to show Armstrong's doping (so which we all have proof of) and nobody seems interested in the fact these riders also dope. Is organized doping really the focus in mainstream media? I'd rather think what they're interested in is the doping of one man.

The proof is, Hincapie is still considered winner of the Plouay GP (though organized by ASO, what are they waiting for?) and Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, and 2nd of Paris-Roubaix, all in 2005.

And I think Madiot pointed towards the difference of treatment in mainstream media between USADA affair and Padua affair. Ballan was third in Paris-Roubaix, this year and nobody was upset?

Thom got started apparently because of a skiing injury and then got bit by the cycling bug. Of course, he couldn't just ride clean, he hires Eddie B. as a "coach" then gets some Master's title out of it before starting his own teams with doping programs.

Dopers seem to follow Wiesel around like dog excrement on your shoe.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor...rs.html?page=2

All of the athletes in that article turned out to be dopers.

The abreviated story, as I understand it, is that through a culmination of mis-managment Thom Wiesel bought the U.S. federation in a not-entirely-legal way and paid off Les Earnest who recognized what Thom was trying as illegal.

This is essential reading to get an idea of exactly how bad things have been at USA Cycling: http://www.sandcreeksports.com/docum..._elections.pdf

Thank you for this. The links seem interesting. I'm gonna read them when I have more time. I'm very busy right now.

 

[Oldman]

Thom got started apparently because of a skiing injury and then got bit by the cycling bug. Of course, he couldn't just ride clean, he hires Eddie B. as a "coach" then gets some Master's title out of it before starting his own teams with doping programs.

Dopers seem to follow Wiesel around like dog excrement on your shoe.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/High-Rollers.html?page=2

All of the athletes in that article turned out to be dopers.

The abreviated story, as I understand it, is that through a culmination of mis-managment Thom Wiesel bought the U.S. federation in a not-entirely-legal way and paid off Les Earnest who recognized what Thom was trying as illegal.

This is essential reading to get an idea of exactly how bad things have been at USA Cycling: http://www.sandcreeksports.com/documents/usa_cyclings_history_of_crooked_elections.pdf

And to elaborate simply for Echoes and Zig: Weisel and Lance didn't invent doping in cycling. They became big fish for the other fraud franchise they developed: Cancer charities, high profile endorsements touting the training regime "on the bike for six hours...", celebrity and political manipulations. That is much bigger league.
Madiot went to work for MS at a time when they needed the Euro model. Madiot and his brother brought it according to domestic team members. The implication was clear and the team model took shape at that time. If Mr. Madiot was pure; he wouldn't have gone to a p*ss-ant American team unless the money was huge and he could do what he wanted. Those facts alone should disqualify his impartiality as to the Armstrong affair.

 

[hiero2]

. . . But if youre going to judge the man's words, at least have the decency to use a proper translation. He is not saying the Armstrong affair is trivial per se. One could use the word incidental just as well. The second paragraph is much more illuminating.

. . .Not a great translation (thanks Google) but it hits the mark nonetheless.

Is this a response to me?

French is my mother tongue and the translation for 'anecdotique' is definitely 'trivial' (confirmed by my Robert & Collins)

Sorry for missing the second paragraph, I was a bit in a hurry this morning.

However the fact that my thread has been downgraded to the bottom of page 2 in less than a half day while there are again dozens of Pharmstrong threads on page 1 is proof of CN collective madness.

While Echoes tells us that "trivial" is the correct translation - when I read the whole piece, I agree with mobici - "incidental" is closer to Madiot's context. Why is this important? It's not, I suppose. I agree that Madiot has a good point - he is saying that the Armstrong affair is history, and we need to pay attention to today. Imo, both positions are correct: we need to pay attention to Armstrong, AND we need to pay attention to today. Without the Armstrong case, the values and results today are clouded and not credible. We need to establish some historical sense of accuracy, so that we can have a sense of accuracy today - so that we can have faith that the organization(s) that are supposed to be protecting cycling are doing exactly that.

I will say it sounds like Madiot has his heart in the right place.

It sounds like he understands the UCI's abuse of focusing on the rider alone just keeps the doping culture alive and well and gives the UCI a powerful lever to get the rest of Elite cycling's actors to cooperate.

As for the Madiot/Wiesel connection, we know Wiesel is no stranger to coordinated doping. I'd like to hear more about the Madiot/Wiesel connection.

It is my understanding that Madiot and his team were caught some years ago, 'fessed up, and have fought the clean fight since. Like Julich. Wiki. Google. Bring us back some links to what you find.

 

[ultimobici]

While Echoes tells us that "trivial" is the correct translation - when I read the whole piece, I agree with mobici - "incidental" is closer to Madiot's context. Why is this important? It's not, I suppose. I agree that Madiot has a good point - he is saying that the Armstrong affair is history, and we need to pay attention to today. Imo, both positions are correct: we need to pay attention to Armstrong, AND we need to pay attention to today. Without the Armstrong case, the values and results today are clouded and not credible. We need to establish some historical sense of accuracy, so that we can have a sense of accuracy today - so that we can have faith that the organization(s) that are supposed to be protecting cycling are doing exactly that.



It is my understanding that Madiot and his team were caught some years ago, 'fessed up, and have fought the clean fight since. Like Julich. Wiki. Google. Bring us back some links to what you find.

I'd be surprised if Madiot & FdJ could have ridden out the ****storm any doping story would have created. FdJ are state owned and doping is covered by the criminal code.

 

[Oldman]

While Echoes tells us that "trivial" is the correct translation - when I read the whole piece, I agree with mobici - "incidental" is closer to Madiot's context. Why is this important? It's not, I suppose. I agree that Madiot has a good point - he is saying that the Armstrong affair is history, and we need to pay attention to today. Imo, both positions are correct: we need to pay attention to Armstrong, AND we need to pay attention to today. Without the Armstrong case, the values and results today are clouded and not credible. We need to establish some historical sense of accuracy, so that we can have a sense of accuracy today - so that we can have faith that the organization(s) that are supposed to be protecting cycling are doing exactly that.



It is my understanding that Madiot and his team were caught some years ago, 'fessed up, and have fought the clean fight since. Like Julich. Wiki. Google. Bring us back some links to what you find.

Your clarification is greatly appreciated. What Madiot has not dealt with in his discussion is the greater, still existing threat: the people that facilitated this program and shared ownership of the team are still in business. They control USA Cycling and are the poster child for a National federation's involvement in the scandal of the era. That the main man was Madiot's former employer is something he could disclose.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Your clarification is greatly appreciated. What Madiot has not dealt with in his discussion is the greater, still existing threat: the people that facilitated this program and shared ownership of the team are still in business. They control USA Cycling and are the poster child for a National federation's involvement in the scandal of the era. That the main man was Madiot's former employer is something he could disclose.

I did not recall the Madiot connection to Weisel, but it doesn't surprise me. We really need a thread about Wiesel, but it's STILL too many vague allegations. Every time you turn around, that guy is closely associated to doped cycling and that's as far as it gets.

Clearly a smart-enough guy to stay one-or-more steps removed.