Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may sound like

[djpbaltimore]

His vocal stance could do some good if properly channeled. I have my doubts that will happen, but he is a young-ish guy, so may grow into the role.

 

[gooner]

Re: Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may soun

...
I've no issue if he thinks Sagan is a doper but he should bite his tongue on the matter.

Well this is the whole point isn't it.
As Uli said, enough people biting their tongues. Not him.

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/816675989031895040
People who keep perpetuating the myth of certain riders being clean and making $$$ of it are part of the tumor that kills cycling.

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/816676503287111680
The world of fighting doping is unglamorous and filled with threats and insults. But you get to keep your dignity and integrity.

That's real anti-doping, sniper. Now tell me what accusing Sagan in that manner achieved.

I'm interested in questioning, solutions and what people know. Not playing to the gallery like this and never will be interested in anything like this.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Uli said it. Not with those direct words, but he said it. I can't think of any other way to interpret what he wrote.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

yeah, again, I can certainly see what you guys are saying.
It's a very fair stance, but it's important to recognize that it's largely a matter of taste.

Personally I love Uli for speaking his mind, and that he does so knowing that it might damage his own business, giving priority to his own sense of integrity.

 

[sniper]

so he didn't say it.
thanks for double checking.

your point is clear though, Uli shouldn't insinuate, and as i said that's a fair opinion to have, although i don't share it.
No need to make stuff up additionally.

 

[yaco]

Re:

yeah, again, I can certainly see what you guys are saying.
It's a very fair stance, but it's important to recognize that it's largely a matter of taste.

Personally I love Uli for speaking his mind, and that he does so knowing that it might damage his own business, giving priority to his own sense of integrity.

I find it surprising that you support Uli i sending out scurrilous and ill-informed tweets despite his role in anti-doping. - It's totally inappropriate behaviour by Uli - It's like Uli thinks he is Trump - I am bemused that someone like you who is self righteous about the evils of doping, find's Uli's behaviour acceptable.

 

[Irondan]

This is what he said:

No, he didn't say that "Peter Sagan is doping" but the insinuation could go either way....

 

[gooner]

Re: Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may soun

That was a loaded first tweet which someone bite on and replied. Uli's response in turn only confirmed what he was implying.

 

[djpbaltimore]

He did say Mick Rogers was a doper. Went out on a limb with that one....

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

edit

 

[gooner]

Re:

He did say Mick Rogers was a doper. Went out on a limb with that one....

Pretty obvious he was now calling Sagan a doper. Look at all responses further down and his interactions back then in relation to that tweet.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 30 Dec 2016
@bucko2c it's refreshing to see a rider beat dopers, sometimes without barely breaking a sweat. hope is not a strategy.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 30 Dec 2016
@bucko2c no, just extraordinary performances - new generation!

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/814596813797949441

 

[pastronef]

Re: Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may soun

...
he is correct to call out Uli in the tweet I linked to.

No he is not.
Uli wasn't the topic. The topic was: how can Swart applaud that piece by Cherise Stander about embracing dopers, when he himself has embraced Julich and when Froome (a rider defended by Swart in the recent past) and Cound both embraced Vino.
Swart made Uli the topic.
I can only assume he did that in order to deflect away from those questions as he was unable to answer them.

Nothing correct about deflecting from inconvenient questions by attacking the messenger.
It's called trolling.

Yes he is. It doesn't make what Jeroen has said or done right and it might be deflecting and obfuscation, but he's still right. A member of an anti-doping committee should not be calling specific rider dopers without some very good, non-circumstantial evidence.

a member of an anti-doping committee making selfie with Gianetti (nineties big epo era, Saunier-Duval manager, Cobo-Geox 2011 manager, etc etc)

here: https://twitter.com/ulif/status/761900599118028800

mind: for me he can take a selfie with whom he wants, maybe they know each others, they´re friends.

everyone makes a selfie with his/her favourite doper (Michelle with Vino, they know each other, live in Monaco)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

His vocal stance could do some good if properly channeled. I have my doubts that will happen, but he is a young-ish guy, so may grow into the role.

djpb are you anti doping or not? I mean I think you are but I also think you are very selective NO? Then again I'm sure at this point you could care less what I think.

But lets all be clear. I have seen people who go on and on about this rider or that rider who is probably a PED abuser. Then everyone pretty much knows the history of the sport. But yet some people selectively chose who they support either a cyclist or a doctor?

Sorry to all but I just don't believe in not 1 of these clowns any longer. The latest eye opener was the TUE hacks. WTF everyone?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

He did say Mick Rogers was a doper. Went out on a limb with that one....

Pretty obvious he was now calling Sagan a doper. Look at all responses further down and his interactions back then in relation to that tweet.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 30 Dec 2016
@bucko2c it's refreshing to see a rider beat dopers, sometimes without barely breaking a sweat. hope is not a strategy.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 30 Dec 2016
@bucko2c no, just extraordinary performances - new generation!

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/814596813797949441

pretty obvious that he doesn't call him a doper.

if you villify someone *strictly on the basis of his words*, then at least be damn sure not to twist those words.

it's par for the course for djpbaltimore and swart though.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

His vocal stance could do some good if properly channeled. I have my doubts that will happen, but he is a young-ish guy, so may grow into the role.

djpb are you anti doping or not? I mean I think you are but I also think you are very selective NO? Then again I'm sure at this point you could care less what I think.

But lets all be clear. I have seen people who go on and on about this rider or that rider who is probably a PED abuser. Then everyone pretty much knows the history of the sport. But yet some people selectively chose who they support either a cyclist or a doctor?

Sorry to all but I just don't believe in not 1 of these clowns any longer. The latest eye opener was the TUE hacks. WTF everyone?

Well, that hack was from the Russians, so it really doesn't matter.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

He did say Mick Rogers was a doper. Went out on a limb with that one....

Pretty obvious he was now calling Sagan a doper. Look at all responses further down and his interactions back then in relation to that tweet.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 30 Dec 2016
@bucko2c it's refreshing to see a rider beat dopers, sometimes without barely breaking a sweat. hope is not a strategy.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 30 Dec 2016
@bucko2c no, just extraordinary performances - new generation!

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/814596813797949441

pretty obvious that he doesn't call him a doper.

if you villify someone *strictly on the basis of his words*, then at least be damn sure not to twist those words.

it's par for the course for djpbaltimore and swart though.

Really, this is going nowhere...

We've all read what Uli said, you can make a case either way.

Personal jabs will do nothing to further either argument.

Let's move on please.

 

[sniper]

agreed, my bad.

"We've all read what Uli said, you can make a case either way. "
Very much agree. As I said, both cases are fair. It's matter of opinion.
What we shouldn't do, and i promise that's the last i'll say about it, is twist his words just to exaggerate the case one wants to make.

 

[djpbaltimore]

'twisting words' is a total straw man. His words have not been twisted one iota by what I have posted. I challenge anybody to post evidence to the contrary.

1) Uli jumped into the fray by his own omission with a trolling comment about Dr. Swart. That he began the spat is an objective fact.

2) The tweets in question that have been posted about Sagan seem a whole lot like the 'if you can't put one and one together' variety. Many others have the same opinion. YMMV. There is a reason I used the term insinuation.

3) Uli didn't like that Dr. Swart went through his timeline, so started playing lawyer (which was his profession BTW) and started throwing out accusations like 'libel'. I would have a whole lot more respect if he stood by his initial claim instead of waffling about the semantics of doubting someone is clean versus calling that person a doper.

 

[Irondan]

I asked nicely to move on from this bickering. Unless anyone has any new information it doesn't make much sense to continue going round and round.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Interesting blog post about the no-doper rule at GFNY, the race that Fluhme runs. The conflict in the piece stems from a sanctioned ex-doper Pietro Caucchioli who wanted to ride (not compete) in the race while doing business for his employer at the expo.

Uli went on a closed FaceBook page that I am a member of that discusses all things doping, a page whose other members include several former pro riders, fans, journalists and similar folk who aren’t exactly the biggest fans of doping, and posted the messages you are about to read below.

Here is an interesting post from Uli that caught my eye after Pietro tried to leverage his companies' participation in the expo ($$$) with him getting a spot at the front of the race.

Pietro
I know Alé and APG well and like what you guys do. If anything, it’s a bigger risk not to come because that would mean Alé is shunning events that are antidoping.
We strongly believe in antidoping and implement a lifetime competition ban at first offense. However, while we don’t give a second chance in competition, we believe in second chances in life because everyone can make a mistake.
Cheers
Uli

Along with the selfies posted earlier by pastronef.... the skeptical among us might begin to doubt whether his anti-doping stance is genuinely held, or due to the branding potential of running an 'anti-doping' race. The issue is that we don't know what is going through these people's heads, so the lionization or demonization can be a bit much.

Pietro
Life yes, competition no. You had your chance in bike racing. A stealing cashier at a bank will never work as cashier again. A doctor misusing his license to sell drugs illegally will lose his license for good. You got caught cheating in bike racing so we think you should not compete again. But we certainly give you a chance in your new role at Alé.
Uli

Lol. A second chance that involves paying money to Fluhme's race. I guess second chance in life doesn't apply to cashiers or doctors. Would he hire an ex-doper for a menial position at his GF? I doubt it.

http://www.crankpunk.com/blogs/crankpunk/item/704-uli-fluhme-pietro-caucchioli-s-little-chat-doping-and-the-tainted-legacy-of-certain-brands.html

 

[Ferminal]

Good old life bans, punish the ones whose behaviour you can't change and reward the new dopers. Zero compatibility with "genuine antidoping stance".

 

[sniper]

"reward the new dopers", (a) what does that mean, and (b) where does Uli say that (or anything remotely similar)?

What he says here: "while we don’t give a second chance in competition, we believe in second chances in life because everyone can make a mistake", sounds rather plausible and fair to me, although sure the lifebans are debatable.

Accepting money for his race, again, where's the problem in that?
He has people working for him who have mouths to feed. He himself has mouths to feed.
If tomorrow Lance comes to you to make a business deal, you're going to refuse because he doped?
Er, don't think so.
Therefore you are not antidoping? Get real.

I don't see any of those posts from Uli being incompatible with a clear and straightforward antidoping stance. But do expand if you feel i'm overlooking something.

Meanwhile let me know when you hear Uli claim that "the testing works" or that "cycling is so much cleaner now".

 

[sniper]

And of course what "genuinely antidoping" actually means is rather personal and subjective.
For instance, if you'd ask around, I don't think you'd find two posters in the Clinic who think exactly the same about how to tackle doping or about related issues such as lifebans yes/no, stripping titles yes/no, etc.

Hence the word *may* in the thread title.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Good old life bans, punish the ones whose behaviour you can't change and reward the new dopers. Zero compatibility with "genuine antidoping stance".

For clarity, even though Uli was talking about life bans in his own event, he has also supported them for the pros as well.

USADA ‏@usantidoping 20 Dec 2014
In #2015Code, athletes may receive 4-year ban for 1st offense of prohibited substance/method. http://usada.org/2015code

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 20 Dec 2014
.@jasonnemecek @usantidoping i hope to see life as the standard. second chance? in life, absolutely. competing? never again

To me, this is the same type of logic that people use about capital punishment to state that death penalties will be a 'deterrent'. In cycling, this will just create uber-omerta IMO.

Since its inception in NY, GFNY has spawned 13 events around the world. Being Anti-doping has been financially rewarding for Uli.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Being Anti-doping has been financially rewarding for Uli.

I do hope so.
Why you make it sound like it's a bad thing, i have no idea.

And I don't think the stuff he says on twitter is financially rewarding for him.
He still says it.

Again, the life-ban is a matter of opinion.
You may disagree with it. And for good reasons. In fact, I tend to agree with you to some extent. I wouldn't go for life-bans for 1st offenders either.
But it's a separate discussion. Imo it doesn't make Uli's antidoping stance any less genuine.