The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
issoisso said:Exactly the opposite of my feelings.
Bye bye Franco. Hope to never see you again.
BroDeal said:Here is a question. The case against Pellizotti appears to rely on two or three samples.
Susan Westemeyer said:I would be reluctant at this point to base anything on the public statements of either side. Both may well, and probably do, know a lot more than they are saying, and of course, both will publicize whatever is to their advantage.
Susan
Dekker_Tifosi said:The last Dutchies who did anything in big races except for Gesink, were T.Dekker (doped), E.Dekker (hematocrit level 50+ Verona 99) and Boogerd (most certainly doped).
Tend to think Gesink is clean, but you never know. If he is doped that would not come as a suprise either
Susan Westemeyer said:I would be reluctant at this point to base anything on the public statements of either side. Both may well, and probably do, know a lot more than they are saying, and of course, both will publicize whatever is to their advantage.
Susan
... although, to be fair, in Gesink's case the excuse "need better weather + more possibilities to do uphill training" holds true on both accounts.Galic Ho said:Did you turn your head, block your ears and just ignore the fact Gesink bought a house in Spain and moved abroard during the off season? Honestly, what pro cyclist does not live near either Italy or Spain? Why would they? It is where all the doctors and clinics to help with their blood values are found. Gesink is like all the rest who aspire to be a top level pro and know how the game is played. He is no less likely to be clean than anyone else in the peloton. His prominence makes him a more likely target.
theyoungest said:It would. Don't talk BS. He's not exactly first on the list of potential dopers.
theyoungest said:... although, to be fair, in Gesink's case the excuse "need better weather + more possibilities to do uphill training" holds true on both accounts.
Galic Ho said:True. But there are also bases closer to the Netherlands that work, well maybe with a little less sunshine. I'm not saying that he isn't clean, but he is not someone I'd stake a claim on. That's your job. You're the Gesink fan. But saying he can beat Valverde and then saying he is clean is one hell of a leap of faith. The type that fans make all the time. I think the number of anomalies tied together suggest something weird. Same thing I get from AS, Nibali and Kreuziger.
Please, don't psychoanalyse a reaction you've misunderstood. Same goes for Galic Ho (who can only argue in platitudes, it seems). I'm not saying Gesink is clean (I'm not even that big of a Gesink fan) but I'd be more surprised to find out he's a doper than, say, Thomas Dekker.issoisso said:Well, but that's just normal, genetically programmed human behaviour, isn't it?
By far the most common type of post on any cycling forum is "yes, X is probably on drugs, Y too, but not [insert favourite rider/rider from the same nationality]. I know everyone says that, but this case is different from everyone else's because [same excuse as everyone else]"
theyoungest said:Please, don't psychoanalyse a reaction you've misunderstood. Same goes for Galic Ho (who can only argue in platitudes, it seems). I'm not saying Gesink is clean (I'm not even that big of a Gesink fan) but I'd be more surprised to find out he's a doper than, say, Thomas Dekker.
Barrus said:still the fact that only 3 of the members of the committee were in favour and the amnount of strange samples should be relatively easy to confirm, or even to disprove. I would think that if such an allegation is made against the committee, which was false the UCI would react, especially against the statement that only 3 members were in favour
Saying it's perfectly normal monkey behaviour is not exactly the kind of support I'm looking for. But thanks anywayissoisso said:Sorry for defending you, then. I'll stay out of it next time
python said:barrus, if you need to check some facts do yourself a favour and check them.
hint: google wada athlete passport giuideline.
3 is all that's required. again, click around, will you ?
9 is the full membership of the uci expert panel to split the load. nothing to do with the cross examination expertise.
Barrus said:BTW did anyone already read Pelli's statement in his press conference, quite an interesting read,
you see, it's a typical situation when a trapped/suspected doper spreads half-truths and lies in order to misinform naive and gullible fans like you.Barrus said:It's just that out of the press conference it appeared as though the rest of the committee was not in accordance with this, but that might be only my own interpretation.
Mellow Velo said:IF and its a big if, Liquigas were unaware of the situation, as they state, then I agree with them, entirely.
This eve of the Giro unveiling, 10 months after the fact, hits the entire team with maximum impact.
It's hard not to feel sorry for Vince Nibs, who now has to ride an unscheduled 3 week monster. They guy has been riding since February and was looking forward to a rest in California!
So California will lose it's big Liquigas name. I'm not sure that's what Pat had in mind, when he instigated his cunning plan.
auscyclefan94 said:Susan, aren't their suppose to be some more names?
Also, on the BMC statement it said that santambrogio would be riding the giro. He is not listed on CN or steephill's start lists. What is up with that?
TomasC said:In this conference Pellizotti also stated that he was informed just 2 days ago. "They told me just two days before the Giro and so there's no time for me to defend myself". See http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pellizotti-insists-he-is-clean.
Now that's very different from what McQuaid said - that the riders had 30 days to explain the values. What do you think of that?
python said:you see, it's a typical situation when a trapped/suspected doper spreads half-truths and lies in order to misinform naive and gullible fans like you.
it worked.
what i suggested is verrry easy - check the facts for yourself and have an informed opinion instead of being a subject for manipulation.
theyoungest said:Saying it's perfectly normal monkey behaviour is not exactly the kind of support I'm looking for. But thanks anyway
python said:you see, it's a typical situation when a trapped/suspected doper spreads half-truths and lies in order to misinform naive and gullible fans like you.
it worked.
what i suggested is verrry easy - check the facts for yourself and have an informed opinion instead of being a subject for manipulation.