Wegelius

[Nathan12]

Dirty or not?

 

[hrotha]

Probably dirty. But more importantly: inconsequential.

 

[Nathan12]

Probably dirty. But more importantly: inconsequential.

Why inconsequential? He has a fairly high-profile position at Garmin, and a book which expressly avoids the issue of doping even though its author rode for and roomed with Di Luca.

He's also interesting as a British climber riding on an Italian team in the years when British road riders were extremely thin on the ground. I'd be very interested to know what Charly actually did and saw.

 

[happychappy]

He's got a silly name.

 

[SundayRider]

Why inconsequential? He has a fairly high-profile position at Garmin, and a book which expressly avoids the issue of doping even though its author rode for and roomed with Di Luca.

He's also interesting as a British climber riding on an Italian team in the years when British road riders were extremely thin on the ground. I'd be very interested to know what Charly actually did and saw.

Rode for the Italians one World Champs didn't he. Never selected for British team again.

 

[Potomac]

Probably dirty. But more importantly: inconsequential.

That was my first reaction.

 

[hrotha]

Why inconsequential? He has a fairly high-profile position at Garmin, and a book which expressly avoids the issue of doping even though its author rode for and roomed with Di Luca.

He's also interesting as a British climber riding on an Italian team in the years when British road riders were extremely thin on the ground. I'd be very interested to know what Charly actually did and saw.

Well the world doesn't revolve around Britain (nor does it revolve halfway between Britain and Finland). And at this point, finding a former doper at Garmin would hardly be a shock, would it.

 

[Benotti69]

I thought he alluded to his doping, not in depth though, in his book.

Dirty.

 

[Benotti69]

Well the world doesn't revolve around Britain (nor does it revolve halfway between Britain and Finland). And at this point, finding a former doper at Garmin would hardly be a shock, would it.

Finding someone not involved in doping at Garmin would be a shock......

 

[SundayRider]

A guy that rode with the likes of Di Luca and Bass and then doesn't mention doping in his book is very suspect IMO.

 

[Benotti69]

A guy that rode with the likes of Di Luca and Bass and then doesn't mention doping in his book is very suspect IMO.

I thought he did but glossed over it and did not go into details, which meant he could work for a team like Garmin

 

[Avoriaz]

A guy that rode with the likes of Di Luca and Bass and then doesn't mention doping in his book is very suspect IMO.

Iirc he specifically states that he won't discuss doping in the book (not that he never saw it or was knee deep in it), but that he wants to paint a picture of life as a domestique, and why he chose this path rather than chasing wins himself

 

[Nathan12]

Iirc he specifically states that he won't discuss doping in the book (not that he never saw it or was knee deep in it), but that he wants to paint a picture of life as a domestique, and why he chose this path rather than chasing wins himself

The problem with the aim of the book is that being a domestique on Liquigas must have involved at least coming into contact with doping. It's not realistic the way Wegelius shifts over the subject.

 

[Digger]

The problem with the aim of the book is that being a domestique on Liquigas must have involved at least coming into contact with doping. It's not realistic the way Wegelius shifts over the subject.

This...how he dealt with it simply wasn't good enough.

 

[Avoriaz]

This...how he dealt with it simply wasn't good enough.

Perhaps, but there are plenty of books about drugs in the sport and aren't difficult to find. He chose not to write about it; we can choose whether or not to read about it. If a writer only writes what you want him to right you won't need to read it

 

[SundayRider]

Iirc he specifically states that he won't discuss doping in the book (not that he never saw it or was knee deep in it), but that he wants to paint a picture of life as a domestique, and why he chose this path rather than chasing wins himself

He was probably most prominent in the mid 2000s, impossible to write a book like that and not mention doping. Omerta.

 

[Avoriaz]

He was probably most prominent in the mid 2000s, impossible to write a book like that and not mention doping. Omerta.

Blinkered view. omertà if he claims not to have seen anything. He doesn't. He simply doesn't write about it and explicitly claims that his book won't cover drugs. If you want to read about drugs don't read this. It's quite simple.

 

[SundayRider]

Blinkered view. omertà if he claims not to have seen anything. He doesn't. He simply doesn't write about it and explicitly claims that his book won't cover drugs. If you want to read about drugs don't read this. It's quite simple.

You can't really write a book and not mention it though. Other books have mentioned how fast gossip and rumours spread around the peloton. Like you said it is open that it doesn't cover it.

 

[Benotti69]

Blinkered view. omertà if he claims not to have seen anything. He doesn't. He simply doesn't write about it and explicitly claims that his book won't cover drugs. If you want to read about drugs don't read this. It's quite simple.

Then he leaves out a major part of his life inside the sport as a domestique, that you had to dope to do your job! Omerta.

If Wegelius wrote about the doping side of being a dom then he would probably not be still in the sport. That is omerta.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Wegelius does talk about doping in Domestique. Or, rather, he explains cogently and convincingly why doping is not the subject of the book.

Frankly, I have more respect for Wegelius's position on the subject than I have for either Sean Yates or Michael Barry.

 

[SundayRider]

Wegelius does talk about doping in Domestique. Or, rather, he explains cogently and convincingly why doping is not the subject of the book.

Frankly, I have more respect for Wegelius's position on the subject than I have for either Sean Yates or Michael Barry.

I don't see how acknowledging doping goes on but stating that your not going to address it is any better than ignoring it altogether, or only revealing certain snippets of infomation?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Omerta Charly wrote a book? Good for her.

Good to see him still involved in cycling.

 

[stutue]

I don't see how acknowledging doping goes on but stating that your not going to address it is any better than ignoring it altogether, or only revealing certain snippets of infomation?

Depends why he wrote the book, and who he's writing it for.

Not everyone is obsessed with doping.

 

[SirLes]

I found his explanations regarding the lack of doping references very logical.

In simple terms he didn't want it to detract from what he was trying to explain- i.e. the life and psychology of a domestique. He doesn't say that he wasn't aware of drugs or never saw them but just that it either involved people he liked so didn't want to drag their names through the mud or if he didn't like them he was advised by lawyers not to accuse them. I'd want to make sure I had some rock solid evidence about people before I started accusing them in print.

As for being inconsequential, not necessarily. If he is "just another doper" maybe but if he rode clean then actually his story is quite important.

Do we have any evidence that he did dope?
(other than the fact he rode on the same team as people who doped because if that is the only proof required I can't think of a single rider in the history of the sport who was clean)

 

[fmk_RoI]

I don't see how acknowledging doping goes on but stating that your not going to address it is any better

A case of the fault being in the eye of the beholder...